Meeting Notes 2014 08 12

From Noisebridge
Jump to: navigation, search

These are the notes from the The 321st Meeting of Noisebridge.

Note-taker: Andy MC; Moderator: Naomi.

  • Jarrod is now a Member


[edit] Attendance

  • 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)

[edit] Short announcements and events

  • 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".

[edit] Membership Binder

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.

[edit] Financial Report

Danny is busy filing our taxes (due August 15th — go John Shutt, acquire the Treasuring cooties!)

[edit] Consensus items

[edit] Proposals from last week

[edit] Reciprocal Banning with Sudo Room

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

[edit] Proposals for next week

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."

[edit] Discussion Notes

[edit] potential CCC members have 6 month waiting period

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?

[edit] Scott from HackAway

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

[edit] Random Extra Items

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

Personal tools