<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    I appreciate that decision. Al is correct that there is *some* room
    for changing the wording of a proposal so long as it isn't radically
    different. If you're calling something a 'stretch', that's one sign
    it may be outside that scope :)<br>
    This is not a criticism of the proposal per se, but process is
    especially important on decisions that affect our rent-making
    engine. On some level, the slow and frustrating parts of the
    consensus process are the very reasons we chose to use it.<br>
    --David<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/20/13, 2:33 PM, bfb wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
      cite="mid:jks8vqjm4p0sfi623bqb20yg.1384985201659@email.android.com"
      type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      The consensus of the meeting was that the proposal, as amended,
      was not radically different enough to warrant another week of
      discussion. The consensus page on the Noisebridge wiki also
      suggests that consensus is decision-centric.¬†
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>I retrospect, insisting that the proposal in question come
        back the next week for further discussion, seems like the best
        idea. I don't know that we can create policy to prevent such
        happenings in the future. The process depends on a mutual
        understanding of what is and is not radically different or
        reasonably similar. My strengthened position is to always err on
        the side of patience.</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>-Kevin</div>
      <br>
      <br>
      -------- Original message --------<br>
      From: davidfine <d@vidfine.com> <br>
        Date:11/20/2013 15:50 (GMT-06:00) <br>
        To: Al Sweigart <asweigart@gmail.com> <br>
          Cc: noisebridge-discuss <noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net>
            <br>
            Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Bug/Exploit in the 2nd
            week of a Consensus Item <br>
            <br>
            I am not arguing that members can retroactively block
            consensus. I'm stating that consensus can only be reached on
            proposals in the form they were submitted to the list for
            prior review. In other words, you can't submit a proposal to
            save kittens and then add language minutes before the vote
            to allow an oil pipeline though the bathrooms. Proposals are
            submitted to the list first so that members can review them
            without being physically present at a Tuesday meeting.
            That's not my opinion, that's a description of the process.
            <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
              href="https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Process">https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Consensus_Process</a><br>
            Cheers,<br>
            --David<br>
            <br>
            <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/20/13, 1:25 PM, Al
              Sweigart wrote:<br>
            </div>
            <blockquote
cite="mid:CAPyZGS=9tKk-Ne-TBQvAY0UHm-TDsw_Wg6Dm0rd-t01DujU0mw@mail.gmail.com"
              type="cite">
              <div dir="ltr">There is no rule or precedence against
                making adjustments to consensus items. You are arguing
                that members can declare that they are blocking a
                consensus item even after it has passed consensus.</div>
              <div class="gmail_extra"> <br>
                <br>
                <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:15
                  PM, davidfine <span dir="ltr"><<a
                      moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:d@vidfine.com"
                      target="_blank">d@vidfine.com</a>></span>
                  wrote:<br>
                  <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                    .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                    <div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> tldr; There
                      are no riders allowed on consensus items.<br>
                      <br>
                      You're mistaken. It's not allowed to tack things
                      on to a consensus proposal or "stretch" them at
                      all. Wouldn't that make you feel like you're
                      circumventing the process that we use to make
                      reasonable decisions?<br>
                      You can reach consensus on something as it was
                      posted to the list or try again next week. You
                      shot yourself in the foot trying to rush it
                      through, you'll need to follow procedure before it
                      counts for anything. <br>
                      You could make the argument that those parts which
                      weren't altered on the day of the meeting are
                      still valid. But it is an absolute certainty that
                      membership fee requirements have not been altered
                      by the vote.<br>
                      Not to comment on the quality of the proposal. It
                      might get support in the future. <br>
                      Best of luck, <br>
                      --D<br>
                      <br>
                      <div>On 11/20/13, 8:14 AM, bfb wrote:<br>
                      </div>
                      <blockquote type="cite"> James, I agree that
                        eliminating the requirement of member dues as a
                        part of the associate member decision was a
                        stretch. It was topical in the context of a
                        member/associate member contrast. I would not
                        have consensed on a proposal that privileges
                        dues with full participation in consensus. ...
                        ... please jump in and correct me if I am
                        mistaken.
                        <div><br>
                        </div>
                        <div>-Kevin¬†</div>
                        <br>
                      </blockquote>
                      <br>
                    </div>
                    <br>
                    _______________________________________________<br>
                    Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
                    <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                      href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
                    <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                      href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss"
                      target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
                    <br>
                  </blockquote>
                </div>
                <br>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
            <br>
          </noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net></asweigart@gmail.com></d@vidfine.com></blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>