Meeting Notes 2014 08 12
These are the notes from the The 321st Meeting of Noisebridge.
Note-taker: Andy MC; Moderator: Naomi.
- Jarrod is now a Member
Attendance[edit | edit source]
- Andy - likes working and supporting Noisebridge
- Jay - tinker breaker and has truck
- Chris - 1st meeting hacker
- Matt - is #reboot ready
- Steve - physician musician
- Scott - 1st time here, local high school teacher (hardware prototype)
- Carlos - I like noisebridge
- Patrick - wants to make physical things
- Jean-Jacques - professional handy man interested Solar Electric / printing
- Dawn - Software Engineer, first time in the space.
- Tom - first meeting, programmer in the past
- Torrie - hack of all trades
- Ron - front end web development first meeting
- Bill - volunteered when moving into NB in 2009
- Kevin - painter of white walls — neural hacking wednesday night !
- Henner - software by day hacks hardware by night (access control)
- Naomi - member since Aug 2009, trying to just work on ONE THING (the payphones + PBX)
Short announcements and events[edit | edit source]
- Naomi - The Great Reboot Party — this Friday, August 15th event!
- Matt - we need help on the floors all this week.
- Naomi - movie screening (Die [Gstettensaga]) was supposed to be July 26th — end of the month?
- Naomi - [we are still fundraising!] Donations welcome.
What is Consensus?
Matt: consensus is alternative to majority votes.
Point of consensus — not to change action but to give information. The member has a "last ditch" option to block — if they could "never live" with the consensus item. Close to "walking out the door".
Membership Binder [edit | edit source]
Daniel Lewis - week 1 / no sponsors / not present
Tristan Mosley - week 3 / no sponsors / not present
Jarrod Hicks - has 2 sponsors and 4 weeks
- Q from matt “what do you define as excellent? “
- A "seeing the results of what I envisioned actually come to light”
- Q from Torrie "why so long to become a member ?”
- A mostly putting myself on the list because encouraged by other members.
- Q from Naomi "what do you see as the proper way to express disagreement in a consensus proposal"
- A "would take it up with the proposer directly”
- Jay —> “he did not want to be a full fledged member for such a long time”
- “he is really patient, especially with people who are not as emotionally intelligent”
Consensus passed, overwhelming support and gratitude from community members and non-members.
Financial Report[edit | edit source]
- Funds in bank:
- Noisetor (See the bulletpoints at the bottom of http://noisetor.net/finances/#summary):`
Danny is busy filing our taxes (due August 15th — go John Shutt, acquire the Treasuring cooties!)
Consensus items[edit | edit source]
Proposals from last week [edit | edit source]
Reciprocal Banning with Sudo Room[edit | edit source]
Proposal: "If the Sudo Room hackerspace in Oakland bans a person from their space for reasons of safety, that person is immediately and automatically banned from Noisebridge."
- Torrie described Sudo room situation about very bad safety - stalking situation
- Naomi: "For reasons of safety"... must define
- Matt : safety
- Andy : what is "principled objection” vs “personality difference”
- Kevin: sounds great bridge to build — improve both of our filters — proxy block from Cory
- Matt : Feeling good about “reciprocal” … needs to be specific for what the banning is for
- Naomi: reviewing sudo room's problems
- Matt : get this defined internally?
- Carl: I’m concerned about automatic banning. Possibly temporary banning, need some sort of review.
- Torrie : Not a permanent final ban. The ban could be undone through a consensus item.
- Matt : need to distinguish Sexual harassment / Stalking / Safety
- Carl : procedurally, we can review the ban on a case by case basis
- Matt : we need to understand their parameters for banning ( Sudo Room)
- Torrie : sudo room “follows the rules until they dont make sense” .. sudo room is evolution
- Matt : safe space security working group is encouraged to handle bans
- Naomi: we probably need to develop this in more detail, I don't see a consensus forming here.
- Matt : violence, sexual, harassment are obvious ban
Proposals for next week [edit | edit source]
Proposal: "If the Sudo Room hackerspace in Oakland bans a person from their space for reasons of safety, that person is immediately and automatically banned from Noisebridge."
Discussion Notes[edit | edit source]
potential CCC members have 6 month waiting period[edit | edit source]
Andy and Matt: CCC disallows even the application for membership until 6 months have passed.
Naomi: I'm for this. Members have the ability to block consensus which is really disruptive when abused. NB has done a poor job bringing people into a real Consensus process; misunderstanding the "block" is a huge part of that.
Henner: "At some point when not enough people know each other, things can degenerate”
Jay: Community trust . . . takes time. In support of 6 months (or more) to build trust.
?: Having lived in a coop … support the sentiment
Jean Jacques: it takes time to form community ties, understanding (voiced support)
Torri: Speaking about cultural preservation
Carl: we have already 4 weeks, should it be longer?
Naomi: is there a growing body of people who recognize this person after 6 months? (consensus)
Torri: again voiced support — inverts the power dynamic in a good way.
Matt: hand in application, disappear 6 months, then return? No.
What does CCC expect from their members ?
Matt: cost benefit analysis — is this person a net positive for the community ?
Tom: some way to track contributions? (Certificates ?)
Jay: (direct response) — you don't need to be asked. People wont even have to ask — it will be visible.
Henner: 6 months … so many times after 3 weeks we review the member binder and that person isn’t here.
Naomi: names in the binder should be familiar to everyone before the vote, people should actually know your name.
Bill: pictures in the book?
Torrie: (direct response) shouldn’t be necessary.
Naomi: the “soft c” consensus sounds like we shouldn’t push people to become members right away.
Patrick: what about associate members?
Naomi: there's no clear community understanding of associate membership
Torrie: the power vacuums might entice certain people … we can spot them by eager associate membership grabbing
Andy: (direct response) like a spam detection system? (Torrie nods)
Jade: nothing stopping non-members from donating
Andy: (direct response) in support of Jade’s comment
Carl: I like the idea of 3 months … people can come and demonstrate that they are a good fit for the community. It depends on the individual and how.
Scott: Stay with 6 months. Why not a year? When you know people in the community, your voice is heard whether you vote or not.
Kevin: 3 months? 6 months? X days. Starting when?
Naomi: (direct response) when reading the binder, everyone should know who member applicants are.
Kevin: (direct response) excellent as a concept.
Torrie: its more of a cultural thing than a hard and fast rule.
Scott: a lot of people should know that person. “Long enough”
Matt: the only objection we need some sort of signal that someone actually wants membership. WIKI page is start date?
Scott from HackAway[edit | edit source]
Scott: possibility of high school classes next week? (HACKAWAY)
middle school and high school students
chrome books on linux
bring equipment
15 week course one hour a week
pay what you can model
encourage all $$ incomes to participate
Time: 4:00-5:30
No more than 12 students
@matt: what ages, and who is responsible
- (direct response) middle school ages 10-18 I (scott) would be responsible
- insurance up to a million dollars
- also has parent-signed waivers
Tom: do they have to be enrolled in middle school? Scott: (direct response) age group 10-14, generally inclusive
Random Extra Items[edit | edit source]
Torri: cleaning the floor tomorrow night ! Help wanted.
Jean Jacques: joe black
Matt: (direct response) not for this meeting (other working group)
Torri: 3D printer working … pieces and parts
Naomi: (direct response) Purchased some 3D printer replacement parts