[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Meeting 10/17/2017

Trent Robbins robbintt at gmail.com
Fri Oct 20 08:10:57 UTC 2017


Hi All,

Is this the full text of the proposal? Thanks

Elevator Repair Fund

*Zach proposes that NB set aside $400 per year for the purpose of elevator
repair costs. Any deductions from this fund can be recorded with receipts
and sent to noisebridge-discuss or the Wiki*


*Thanks, *

*Trent*

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 00:33 Revolt <revoltrightnow at gmail.com> wrote:

> From the Noisebridge Wiki on Consensus:
> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Process
> "In order to block consensus, a member must be physically present at a
> meeting.
> If a member is not physically present at the meeting, they may attempt
> to find another member in good standing who is willing to act as proxy
> on their behalf. "
>
> I brought this item up at 3 consecutive meetings:
> First, as a "small c" item on 10/3/2017,
> second week as a "big C" item on 10/10/2017
> and thirdly as "voting big C" item on 10/17/2017
> I took the time out of my extremely busy schedule and with my host of
> disabilities to be present at all 3 meetings.  At no point did anyone
> or their proxy block this item.
>
> I was asked for clarification on my proposal and I gave it over the
> discussion.  There was confusion around:
>
> 1) if the money will go to Noisebridge members (it will not, per
> sensible-ness and agreed consensus)
> 2) if money would come from general fund or equipment fund (general
> consensus at proposal for 10/10/2017 meeting was to use the general
> fund).
> 3) what the money will go to (it is for parts and outside paid labor
> as needed, discussed again and agreed to in the meetings).
>
> at no point did anyone say they blocked this item.  On 10/15/2017 John S.
> said,
> "I hope you can take another look at this process as not people saying
> "no," but people saying "yes, but specifically what and how."
>
> This makes sense, so I have been working hard to answer questions on
> the "what" and "how."
>
> To try and block this item now, after weeks of hard work and going
> through proper Noisebridge procedure, with no attendance at any
> meetings, without clearly expressing on NB-discuss that you would
> block it, or attempting to even have someone be your proxy to block
> it, is very unexcellent.  I do not agree that this is the way
> Noisebridge functions.
>
> I'd love to hear input from others.  The Noisebridge wiki seems quite
> clear on how the consensus process works, but maybe I missed
> something?  For the past 7 years I have been coming to Noisebridge I
> remember consensus being made at meetings, with physical people (incl.
> proxies) present.  Someone being present at a meeting to block the
> item has been a requirement for as long as I can remember.
>
> -Zach
>
>
>
>
> On 10/19/17, Trent Robbins <robbintt at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree that this conversation was ongoing.
> >
> > Does anyone know where the consensus proposal text is available for
> review?
> >
> > Trent
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 6:46 PM, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Zach,
> >>
> >> I have some qualms about this being passed off as consensus when there
> >> were clearly concerns about allocating money from the general fund that
> >> members (including myself) shared outside of the meeting. I don’t
> believe
> >> that true consensus includes just 100% of people present at a meeting,
> >> but
> >> 100% of the community. I have an ongoing obligation that keeps me from
> >> attending Tuesday meetings, but even if I did not, the meetings are not
> >> the
> >> only place where consensus is reached. The vast majority of discussion
> >> typically takes place outside of the meeting.
> >>
> >> My practice when proposing consensus items, especially when they involve
> >> spending money, is to make a good faith effort to get broad feedback and
> >> revise proposals to address concerns and clarify specific details.
> >> Whether
> >> or not someone is physically present at the meeting is not really
> >> pertinent.
> >>
> >> I respect the goal of this proposal and look forward to working on
> >> repairing the elevator with funds already set aside. As far as
> >> immediately
> >> allocating additional money from the general fund to the elevator repair
> >> fund, I do not believe we have a true consensus on that decision, as
> >> reflected by the long conversations on -discuss.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> John
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> > On Oct 19, 2017, at 5:30 PM, Revolt <revoltrightnow at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The "large C" consensus item that I proposed at the Noisebridge
> >> > meeting on 10/10/2017 with consensus reached on 10/17/17 was to
> >> > allocate a minimum of $400 per year from the Noisebridge general fund
> >> > towards elevator repairs.  This can be verified by all the people
> >> > present who were 100% in support of this item (as far as I know, no
> >> > one spoke out against it and many spoke up in support).
> >> >
> >> > Any money available beyond that is great.  I am glad that the DBI is
> >> > requiring NB to spend money ($200) for ADA access, but this does not
> >> > necessarily have to go to the elevator.
> >> >
> >> > The money that Phillip is planning to donate ($720) to be matched by
> >> > the equipment fund ($720) is not yet available and is a separate issue
> >> > to this consensus item.
> >> >
> >> > Hopefully that offers some clarification.  If anyone has any other
> >> > questions or was at the meetings and feels this is inaccurate, please
> >> > let us know.
> >> >
> >> > -Zach
> >> >
> >> >> On 10/19/17, John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Another interpretation: The proposal says at least $400 should be
> >> spent, but
> >> >> we can spend more if there are more funds available. Since we have
> >> >> $200
> >> in
> >> >> the fund already, $720 more incoming, and $920 in matching grants
> >> available
> >> >> from the equipment fund, we could spend $1,840 on elevator repair
> this
> >> year.
> >> >> This is also just my read on it and would want to have a sense of
> >> >> other
> >> >> people’s thoughts.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Oct 19, 2017, at 2:04 PM, kprichard <kprichard at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi John,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I am only aware of the 2017-10-10 meeting notes writeup-
> >> >>>
> >> >>> https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2017_10_10#Elevat
> >> or_Repair_Fund
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Others may be aware of another version.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Kevin
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:51 PM, John Shutt <
> john.d.shutt at gmail.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>> Hi all,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Can someone link to the actual text of the consensus proposal?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> John
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On Oct 19, 2017, at 1:32 PM, kprichard <kprichard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Greetings, NB-
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> A meeting has occurred.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Most notable, Zach's consensus item proposal from last week, of
> >> creating
> >> >>>>> a set-aside for elevator repair from the general fund, was read
> >> >>>>> again
> >> >>>>> and has gone into effect without objection.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Meeting Summary-
> >> >>>>>  *   Announcements: 2017-10-30: Google "Playcrafting" game dev
> >> >>>>> expo;
> >> >>>>> ADA compliance floor markings added; City College is adding maker
> >> >>>>> spaces
> >> >>>>>  *   Finances: we have 9 months rent in the bank
> >> >>>>>  *   New members: open apps: Nicole (3rd week), Merlin (4th week;
> >> >>>>> deferred: not present)
> >> >>>>>  *   New philanthropists: open apps: Kelly A (1st week)
> >> >>>>>  *   Consensus Items: Zach's proposal to allocate general funds
> for
> >> >>>>> elevator repair was consensed ($400 to start)
> >> >>>>>  *   Discussion Items: (none)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2017_10_17
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> -Kevin
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>>>> 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
> >> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >>
> >
>
-- 
(Sent from cellphone)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20171020/210c8b17/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list