[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Meeting 10/10/2017

John Shutt john.d.shutt at gmail.com
Sun Oct 15 19:35:37 UTC 2017


X-post from Slack:

I think we need a more robust system for transparency and documentation of spending if we change the system so lots of people can spend cash as they see fit. My concern is that it actually takes a lot of work to keep track of spending and publicize it, and I don't think most people would do it. It also makes it harder to file tax information at the end of the year since we need to show income and expenses by source, dollar amount, and spending category. Having lots of people spending money in a decentralized way probably makes that impossible unless we have a much more robust system than we currently have.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 15, 2017, at 1:47 AM, Trent Robbins <robbintt at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> After sending this email, it bothered me a bit that you have to go through a gatekeeper to get access to cash to complete minor works at Noisebridge.
> 
> I tried to view it through the lens of doocracy to come to some insight.
> 
> Spending cash is generally viewed as a nonrevertible change. Although some spending can be reverted (an unopened item returned), it is generally a permanent state change, analogous to painting over a wall.
> 
> With doocracy, the more nonrevertible changes your actions have, the more you should ask around, gathering what is colloquially called "lower c consensus".
> 
> Applying doocracy to cash, the more Noisebridge money you plan to spend on improving the ability of Noisebridge to achieve its mission, the more "lower c consensus" you should gather.
> 
> This doesn't solve the problem of needing to interface with the treasurer. The treasurer cleary cannot deliver any amount of money to any requester, the treasurer would be held accountable for that.  The treasurer historically has polled the so-far-gathered "lower c consensus", measured their own whuffie, assessed the risk, and then made a judgment call. The flexibility of this process does make all the communication routing slow.
> 
> Also the gatekeeper can be dispensed with for amounts of money in the $20-80 range, but not the gathering of "lower c consensus". There is a jar of money on the refrigerator that can be used for whatever small expenses occur.
> 
> 
> Trent
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 01:22 Trent Robbins <robbintt at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Zach -
>> 
>> Email the treasurer and confirm what you plan to spend and wait for a confirmation. Then give them a receipt for reimbursement when you have spent it.
>> 
>> For anyone who wishes to have the money from the general fund in-pocket before they spend it, discuss w/ the treasurer a process to do this traceably.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Trent
>> 
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Revolt <revoltrightnow at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > we have $400 to spend right now on elevator stuff.>
>>> 
>>> Which is where?  How can someone access this for parts for the elevator?
>>> 
>>> >So if we know what we can do with $400 to improve the elevator, we can move on that now without a need for formal consensus.>
>>> 
>>> I sent a link in the previous email for one part.  Is this money
>>> available for hiring someone to come inspect the elevator?  How does
>>> the process of actually getting parts work?
>>> 
>>> >I would suggest modifying and expanding the proposal to create an earmarked Accessibility Fund that's fed in some way on a regular basis from the general fund >
>>> 
>>> Do you want to propose this at the meeting?  I will vote for an
>>> Accessibility fund.  You don't need me to alter my consensus item, you
>>> can just shoot it down and propose this instead.
>>> 
>>> I think the main point that is being missed here is the ongoing use of
>>> the elevator and the ongoing costs of its repair.  I opened this
>>> consensus item as a reasonable amount (<$35/month) for not only repair
>>> but preventative maintenance and upkeep.  It is just to have something
>>> set aside so that people like me with a host of disabilities and other
>>> responsibilities don't need to be typing email after email, injuring
>>> myself, and having countless conversations to get a few bucks to keep
>>> the elevator going.  It's just nuts how far this has had to go.
>>> 
>>> >More news from DBI: Since we did an estimated $1000 worth of work on the SparkleForge, we're required to spend $200 (20%) on accessibility improvements, starting with the entryway. >
>>> 
>>> I'm glad there is some money now, that is good news.  but I don't
>>> think it is excellent to need to wait for the government to /require/
>>> accessibility money as the only way to get Elevator / Accessibility
>>> funds.  It just shows how incredibly lacking Noisebridge is in this
>>> department.
>>> 
>>> It breaks my heart to read how much resistance a simple Elevator
>>> Repair Fund has met.  There are funds for other super minor things.
>>> Accessibility just isn't a priority for a lot of people in the NB
>>> community and that kind of breaks my heart.  It gives the clear
>>> message that me, and people like me, are not important to have in the
>>> space.
>>> 
>>> The fact that a person with multiple severe disabilities had to come
>>> repair the elevator for their own access to the space is very, very
>>> sad.  It is even more sad that people in the community seem
>>> uninterested in the long-term prevention of that happening again.
>>> 
>>> #unexcellent.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Zach
>>> 
>>> On 10/14/17, Revolt <revoltrightnow at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> we have $400 to spend right now on elevator stuff.>
>>> >
>>> > Which is where?  How can someone access this for parts for the elevator?
>>> >
>>> >>So if we know what we can do with $400 to improve the elevator, we can move
>>> >> on that now without a need for formal consensus.>
>>> >
>>> > I sent a link in the previous email for one part.  Is this money
>>> > available for hiring someone to come inspect the elevator?  How does
>>> > the process of actually getting parts work?
>>> >
>>> >>I would suggest modifying and expanding the proposal to create an earmarked
>>> >> Accessibility Fund that's fed in some way on a regular basis from the
>>> >> general fund >
>>> >
>>> > Do you want to propose this at the meeting?  I will vote for an
>>> > Accessibility fund.  You don't need me to alter my consensus item, you
>>> > can just shoot it down and propose this instead.
>>> >
>>> > I think the main point that is being missed here is the ongoing use of
>>> > the elevator and the ongoing costs of its repair.  I opened this
>>> > consensus item as a reasonable amount (<$35/month) for not only repair
>>> > but preventative maintenance and upkeep.  It is just to have something
>>> > set aside so that people like me with a host of disabilities and other
>>> > responsibilities don't need to be typing email after email, injuring
>>> > myself, and having countless conversations to get a few bucks to keep
>>> > the elevator going.  It's just nuts how far this has had to go.
>>> >
>>> >>More news from DBI: Since we did an estimated $1000 worth of work on the
>>> >> SparkleForge, we're required to spend $200 (20%) on accessibility
>>> >> improvements, starting with the entryway. >
>>> >
>>> > I'm glad there is some money now, that is good news.  but I don't
>>> > think it is excellent to need to wait for the government to /require/
>>> > accessibility money as the only way to get Elevator / Accessibility
>>> > funds.  It just shows how incredibly lacking Noisebridge is in this
>>> > department.
>>> >
>>> > It breaks my heart to read how much resistance a simple Elevator
>>> > Repair Fund has met.  There are funds for other super minor things.
>>> > Accessibility just isn't a priority for a lot of people in the NB
>>> > community and that kind of breaks my heart.  It gives the clear
>>> > message that me, and people like me, are not important to have in the
>>> > space.
>>> >
>>> > The fact that a person with multiple severe disabilities had to come
>>> > repair the elevator for their own access to the space is very, very
>>> > sad.  It is even more sad that people in the community seem
>>> > uninterested in the long-term prevention of that happening again.
>>> >
>>> > #unexcellent.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -Zach
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 10/13/17, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> More news from DBI:
>>> >>
>>> >> Since we did an estimated $1000 worth of work on the SparkleForge, we're
>>> >> required to spend $200 (20%) on accessibility improvements, starting with
>>> >> the entryway. So right now that's seeding the Elevator Repair Fund
>>> >> (Accessibility Fund?) with $200. We don't need consensus on it since it's
>>> >> a
>>> >> legal requirement that we do it. With a matching $200 grant from the
>>> >> equipment fund, we have $400 to spend right now on elevator stuff. When
>>> >> the
>>> >> check from Phillip's employer arrives, the elevator fund will get a $720
>>> >> boost, and be eligible for another $720 match from the equipment fund.
>>> >>
>>> >> So if we know what we can do with $400 to improve the elevator, we can
>>> >> move
>>> >> on that now without a need for formal consensus.
>>> >>
>>> >> If we want to keep working towards a consensus proposal to improve
>>> >> accessibility, I would suggest modifying and expanding the proposal to
>>> >> create an earmarked Accessibility Fund that's fed in some way on a
>>> >> regular
>>> >> basis from the general fund or by a separate donation drive. That would
>>> >> provide a clear funding mechanism and budget to continue making
>>> >> accessibility improvements to the space over time, working along the
>>> >> lines
>>> >> of the equipment fund, and with matching grants from the equipment fund.
>>> >>
>>> >> John
>>> >>
>>> >> Sent from my iPhone
>>> >>
>>> >> On Oct 13, 2017, at 2:55 PM, Phillip Pearson <pp at myelin.nz> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>>>> In this actual case, this discussion led to an observer pledging
>>> >>>>>> money
>>> >>>>>> to a dedicated Elevator Repair Fund nearly double the size of what
>>> >>>>>> was
>>> >>>>>> originally requested, which I consider a good outcome.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> This is great!  Who is this mystery person (or do they want to remain
>>> >>>> anonymous?)  I would like to get in contact with them.  I can do some
>>> >>>> of the research on a qualified repair person to come to NB and I can
>>> >>>> fill them in on repairs so far.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> That would be me :)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The money is coming from a matching grant from my employer; AFAICT it
>>> >>> should get to Noisebridge in 45-60 days.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm afraid I don't really have any time to actually help repair the
>>> >>> elevator, but I like your repair fund proposal, and want to support
>>> >>> the project.  I think it is an excellent idea to have a small amount
>>> >>> of money set aside for parts, outside help, possibly a professional
>>> >>> contract, so that folks can just go fix it rather than first having to
>>> >>> debate the merits of spending money from the general fund.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> - Phil
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> 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
>> 
> 
> -- 
> (Sent from cellphone)
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171015/b2bea7af/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list