[Noisebridge-discuss] Questions and Concerns with the Proposal to Strike All Members from the Roles

Oren Beck orenbeck at gmail.com
Wed Oct 15 04:52:01 UTC 2014


I've been watching this with a detached sensibility of hoping there would
be a clear goal eventually revealed. And that's the Stasis Quo once more.
We've got folks passionately seeking actions and it's looking to be a must
act before planning  scene.  I see motions to Just Do This NOW! but not a
clue to tell us the reasoning for Doing Anything.  I was taught the
methodology of Observe-Orient-Decide-Act.  Also expressed as how to know
what you are doing before beginning to do it.


To make my evaluation flatly clear- I've not yet seen a coherent set of
statements that touch on the  "Journalism101 W's"  of the proposal/s.  And
then I get depressed grasping that not many folks even have Clue  Zero
about the W's...

Oren Beck

816.632.3695

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:44 AM, jarrod hicks <hicksu at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am also concerned and confused by this proposal. (Maybe I am unclear
> what is supposed to be consensed on.)
>
> The summary of the proposal from the Current Consensus Items page is
> "Let's reboot membership at Noisebridge". This doesn't explain much but the
> informal title is "Striking all members from the Roles".
>
> If this is all that is proposed, I don't think that we should strike all
> the members from the roles. I don't think this accomplishes anything worth
> the time, effort, and discussion needed to put "Membership" back together
> afterward, especially with out the procedure in place before the proposal
> is consensed. It is unclear how the community be improved by removing the
> existing members. Members who aren't participating have already removed
> themselves from the active community, Members who don't pay dues are on
> hiatus and cannot block or proxy block. Members who are paying their dues
> are participating at Noisebridge, even if it is only by paying dues. It
> seems like this is already a decent enough setup and Members who are
> inactive in the space could always become active Members again,
> circumstances change for all of us.
>
> Still I think there is more going on here than the proposal states.
>
> According to the meeting notes I found there are some other concerns that
> are driving this proposal, i.e. proxy blocks, new "trust" relationships,
> making it easier to clean up the member list by deleting it, and others but
> I don't think I can address them without understanding why they matter in
> this context. In general I do not seeing the connection between these
> issues and this proposal.
>
> If there are particular members that should be removed from the member
> list then this should be proposed instead.
>
> I trust the proposer of this item a great deal so I expect that the
> incomplete state of this proposal is probably an artifact of the meeting
> process, but in its current condition I think this idea is still at the
> discussion item stage and should be removed from the Current Consensus
> Items page.
>
> Also, I think Slack would be a better place for this discussion and
> development, instead of the Tuesday meeting.
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, kjs <bfb at riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear Noisebridge,
>>
>> It was proposed last week that Noisebridge should strike all members
>> from the roles [0]. The reasons stated include [1]:
>>
>> 1) We have 40 or so people who essentially have, "stock options in a job
>> they never show up to work for".
>>
>> 2) The only power w/ membership is consensus-blocking ability. The
>> observed behavior is people sending in "proxy blocks" without having
>> been present for discussion. Some are great, some are bullshit.
>>
>> 3) What does it mean to have 50ish members that never show up or who pop
>> in every now and again?
>>
>> My questions and concerns:
>>
>> 1) To add a new member to the roles requires two member sponsors and the
>> consensus of Noisebridge. What's the kernel to repopulate the member
>> roles w/o members to consense on new ones?
>>
>> 2) With regard to number 2 above, I need some more convincing that
>> Noisebridge has seen sufficient numbers of bullshit proxy blocks to
>> warrant the proposed action. Can we produce a list documenting proxy
>> blocks in the past year? And scrutinize the list to discern the bullshit
>> proxy blocks from the good proxy blocks?
>>
>> 3) What is consensus with a quorum of zero?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> A concerned denizen of the Peoples' Republic of Nosiebridge
>>
>> [0] https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Current_consensus_items
>> [1] https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2014_10_07
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20141015/73cf8925/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list