[Noisebridge-discuss] Let's talk about: "Rights" section
asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 10:00:28 UTC 2014
Naomi copy/pasted this from a different thread. I've replied there:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:50 AM, Naomi Gmail <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Al, why are you acting in bad faith here?
> We agreed as a board to revisit the process by which these policy changes
> came about in the first place and YOU even proposed reverting them to put
> these changes through a more legitimized board discussion process.
> Why are you putting these discussion items forth as if these changes were
> already in effect?
> Discuss as hypothetical all you want. I encourage it. Although why you
> didn't bother doing this /before/ voting on a massive board proposal that
> /could/ have been broken down into pieces like these is a great mystery.
> Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:26 AM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> There's a lot of talk on the mailing list about the latest board policies.
> I'd like to focus on segments individually so that discussion can happen
> about which parts people agree with an which parts people don't.
> Do not be mistaken: the membership still has the power to change
> Noisebridge policy with a 2/3 consensus. Policies are not written in stone
> and are open to change, just as they have always been.
> This thread concerns the "Rights" section on
> https://github.com/noisebridge/bureaucracy/blob/master/membership.mdwhich reads:
> The following rights are afforded to members in good standing. If a member
> is delinquent, they are not entitled to these rights.
> 1. A member is entitled to participate in membership meetings.
> 2. A member is entitled to participate in election of the board.
> 3. A member is entitled to be at Noisebridge at any time, to have the
> means to obtain entry to Noisebridge, and to bring guests to Noisebridge
> and to host them there while the member is also present.
> 5. A member is entitled to access the list of all persons who are members.
> My commentary: I don't have a problem with most of these. I can see
> potential problems with part 1 though: I know Kevin and others have
> expressed that they think anyone at the space, member or not, should be
> able to participate at the meetings.
> I could see member meetings being "members-only" if the barriers to
> membership were greatly lowered. As it is right now though, I think the bar
> to become a member is still to high and should be lowered. I'd be open to
> revoking/rewording this part of this section.
> Another potential issue is with number 3. It might be easy to miss paying
> dues (though online payments can make this less likely), but I wouldn't
> want a member to feel like they couldn't access the space because of a
> short term slipup. (Though the item doesn't say they *can't* come into the
> space, nor that they couldn't be the guest of another member. But I'd like
> some softer language on that.)
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss