Meeting Notes 2017 10 24

From Noisebridge
Jump to: navigation, search

These are the notes from the The XXXth Meeting of Noisebridge. Date: 2017-10-24 Note-taker: FIXME YOUR NAME HERE; Moderators: FIXME THEIR NAME HERE.

  • One or two bullet points of high-level meeting summary.

Meeting Summary[edit]


  • Announcements:
  • Finances:
  • New members: (three applications are at 4 weeks but no one could attend!)
  • New philanthropists: Kelly, Roy, Adrian, Kyle, Andrew, Elena
  • Consensus Items: Establish an Elevator Repair Fund
  • Discussion Items:


Noisebridge is a 501c3 nonprofit that provides a space for creation, collaboration, and learning about technology and creative projects. Noisebridge provides space, power tools, and infrastructure to help the public learn new skills and create cool things. Noisebridge continues to exist through and depends entirely on membership fees and donations. Our code of conduct is 'Be excellent to each other'."

  • Introduce any experimental or unusual moderation techniques that may be using during the meeting like: direct responses, limited speaking time, orderless stack, &c.
  • Round of introductions (remember, announcements come later):
    • What's your name
    • What do you do
    • What do you maintain at Noisebridge?
    • if you are new: how did you hear about Noisebridge?
  • Kelly - I do 3d printing and infosec stuff at NB
  • Roy - Building stuff, learning about infosec and lockpicking
  • Sebastian - pretty new to NB, into programming theory and math, introduced to nb by mitch to ask about nb fiscal sponsorship
  • Jenn - From Chicago - things look amazing since I was here 2 years ago, I teach digital fabrication at The Museum Science and Industry in Chicago (a fablab)
  • Dang - I haunt this place, I am an apparition. I enjoy long walks on the beach, complex systems, and scribbling illegibly in my notebook.
  • Katherine - Wearables and working in the sewing area
  • Chris - I am chris, I do stuff
  • Trent - Started the current python class, developing python courses, and other stuff.
  • Ryan - Noisebridge philanthropist, interested in just about everything, multidisciplinary specialist - love helping at nb and usually here every Tuesday for the unityversity gamebridge class.
  • Will - 3D printing
  • Joe - Playing with sensors
  • Matt - I'm leaving, bye
  • Daniel - breaks things in infosec
  • Adrien - back after a year, 3D printer stuff, machine shop, starting a Fusion 360 class
  • Travis - been here a few times before but not as much as I wanted to. Interested in programming python, js, web, interested in music for games.
  • Mark - Been here before, working on robot, AI programming game, programming, circuits, robots
  • Paddy - Always interested in learning about cool stuff.

Short announcements and events[edit]

  • Cool new projects? Something you'd like people to know? Say now, but keep it short! One or two sentences please!
  • Any happenings at the space of which members should be made aware.
  • Don't hog everyone's time since we all just want to hack!
  • Adrian - Fusion 360 class coming up - CAD Design Class - Thursdays starting November 2nd. Approximately 7 PMish.
  • Travis - Mark and I are going to work on halite - a programming competition for AI for games. Tonight, and whenever in the future. Competition runs until January at least.
  • Mark - Annual bartending robot at DNA lounge. We want to give a heads up, it's in 9 months! Come ask us.

Safe Space[edit]

Note: This section is experimental. We discussed it at Meeting_Notes_2016_06_28. We're going to try it for the next meeting, and see how it goes, and then discuss in the discussion section how it went, and how we'd like to tweak it.

Noisebridge is a safe space. Invite a volunteer to describe what that means.

Some specific points you might prompt the group to touch on, if it doesn't happen naturally:

  • What to do if you feel uncomfortable.
  • Noisebridge strives to be radically inclusive. What does that mean?
  • Noisebridge has an antiharassment policy. What does that mean?

Ryan - Noisebridge a while back became what we consider a safe space, which is both an idea and implementation of beign a space that is both open to the communtiy but some place that people can come and feel safe no matter what opinions they may hold as long as they follow the rules of this place, people can come and relax or talk with someone. We have a sheet of people you can talk to if you are stressed out or emotional. We also have a safe space policy on the door. People can come here to feel safe no matter who they are as long as they can be excellent to each other. If you don't you can immediately bring it up with a person listed on the door or someone you know that comes around a lot and might know the protocol for dealing with when someone feel unsafe or uncomfortable.

Trent - Some opinions that some people hold might not be welcome here. The important thing is that Noisebridge used to be a place that was radically inclusive. But, by including some people, you exclude some people who are also worthwhile participants. Prejuduced people usually suck. Safe space analogy: woodshop -> loud instruments warning, tell them so they can protect hearing -- safe space is about warning people so they can prepare or leave a situation so they can feel safe. Side note: safe-space people on the door is not accurate anymore. We should replace it with something blank and have it be more accurate. Should do that today.


Invite a knowledgable volunteer to describe who can participate at Noisebridge, including:

  • Describe how to get an rfid key for the door system
  • Describe how to get access to slack

Dang - Everyone can participate at Noisebridge! You get an RFID tag by hanging out and proving you are most excellent. A member can give you an RFID tag. A philanthropist can renew you. To get access to slack, hang out and be excellent and you can ask for an invite in person.


  • Invite a knowledgeable volunteer to describe Philantropy, and the application process.
  • Read off any names from the binder for the past month. Any applicants must have their sponsor present to vouch for them.
  • If there are no objections, they're a philanthropist! Their pledge should be handed over to the Secretary posthaste, after which their token will be updated to give them the 24/7 access they've earned(?)

Kelly - Philanthropy is a way for people to get 24 hour access to NB and contribute to the commuity with a monthly donation. A philanthropist doesn't participate fully in the consensus process (no blocking rights). You must put a paper in the binder and agree to the philanthropist pledge. Once you are confirmed in that meeting you are a philanthropist.

New Philanthropists:

   - Kelly
   - Roy
   - Adrian
   - Kyle
   - Andrew
   - Elena
  • Trent - Any member can revoke someone's philanthropy. The revoked philanthropist can reapply.

Membership Binder [edit]

  • Invite a knowledgeable volunteer to describe membership, and the application process.

Being a member of Noisebridge is not like being a member of a gym or your local chess club. Anyone can come to Noisebridge to hack and learn: you don't need to be a member for that. At Noisebridge, membership is something different: it means taking responsibility and committing to help to maintain, improve, and govern Noisebridge. As a member of Noisebridge, you don't just come here to hack and learn, you actively work to improve what you see around you, help to deal with problems, and make this community and space better than it is today.

  • Read off any names from the binder for the past month. Mark down a check or other indicator on every open application to keep track of how many weeks they've been read out.
  • Anyone eligible to join this week should
    • introduce themselves,
    • answer any questions members may have for them, then
    • leave the area in search of gifts (traditionally beer and a lime, or cookies) for the rest of the group.
  • The rest of the meeting should reach consensus on whether they may join.
  • Remember to applaud new members when they return.

Membership Applicants:

   - Merlin (4 checkmarks) (More than that?!)
   - Nichole (4 checkmarks)
   - Lady Red (5 checkmarks)

Nick - A member is someone who wants to move the space forwards, the biggest thing is the ability to block consensus proposals. If you were to block something, it's more of a sign that we should continue to talk and deliberate about the item. It's like a steering group of sorts.

Financial Report[edit]

No details on the financial report this week (fill in later).


  • invite a knowledgeable volunteer to give a brief primer on consensus process
  • It is important that everyone in attendance understands at least:
    • Blocking with verbalized principled objections.
    • Why we use consensus over other approaches to decision making.
    • How consensus isn't a legislative process
    • Why consensus isn't applicable to some things like conflict resolution, resolution of time sinks, and the like.

Roy - The idea of consensus is to get an outcome/proposal that everyone is comfortable with to move the space forwards to a better place. For small-c consensus, you might want to make a change to the space larger than one you would be comfortable making on your own. Big C Consensus is a more formal process, the exact nature of which is up for debate. My basic understanding is that a formal written proposal without changes between the two meetings has to come to two meetings and not be blocked. Must be posted on current consensus items and on the noisebridge-discuss mailing list. Once everyone is comfortable with it you can then consense on it.

Proposals from last week [edit]

(Add any items which are consensed upon or someone has raised a principle objection for to the Consensus Items History page.)

Proposals for next week [edit]

(Add any new items for consensus to the Current Consensus Items page.)

Trent reading proposal from Zach - **Establish an Elevator Repair Fund** Establish a fund for repair and maintenance of the Noisebridge Elevator. The fund established and agreed upon should be a minimum of $400 per year drawn from the Noisebridge General Fund. The funds are to be used for 2 purposes: 1) To hire professional repair person(s) and 2) To pay for parts needed for the Elevator to be safe and 100% functional. The funds are not to be used to pay Noisebridge members who wish to do repairs.

Zach - 100% functionality is defined as: today we were fixing the call button to bring the elevator down to the lower level. While not necessary to move up and down the elevator, it is necessary for 100% functionality. Gate got jammed on the way up today. Zach knows how to fix it, but not everyone does. Defined as the gate works, 100% of the time, people don't get trapped.

Multiple discussion participants: we should strengthen the proposal by defining what "100% functional" means. What are the objective definitions?

Zach - From an electrical engineering background, 100% has a particular meaning. Would like to go to the tresurer and say "I need $35 for a lightbulb", seems unlikely that someone would block that.

Multiple discussion participants: Perhaps add a list of things on the Wiki that are expected to work?

Zach - What is there are intermittent issues that aren't captured by individual things on a list. Where is the line on a consensus proposal? Does this need to be proposed again from scratch as part of defining the "100% functional" term?

Ryan - One comment: I understand what electrically what 100% means, but I also understand that defining 100% is somewhat an issue. 100% of the time it works 60% of the time is not true 100%. Definitely think this is something that we can define over time. 100% for 100% of the time is probably impossible. Over time things wear down. I think 100% working should mean it should go where you want when you ask it to. We've had 10 major breakdowns in the past 2 years, if not more if you include smaller breakdowns. We get it to about 90% working order about 85% of the year. We do need the fund to improve.

Katherine - Trying to enumerate what counts as 100% is a bad idea, because it will be used to rule-lawyer. What's going to happen if there are 5 bullet points?

Kevin - There may be value in defining how the elevator works as a system on the wiki systematically.

Adrian - We're overthinking it!

Kevin - Context: elevator was out for 6 to 8 weeks. For some of our participants, it is their only way into the space. Imagine traveling from far away and not being able to get in at the gate. Part of a pattern of unconscious/inadvertent ableness, and we should be more cognizant of it. Important to have a consensus item to encourage discussion and stimulate efforts to improve things.

Trent - If we make changes to wording now, it doesn't slow down the consensus process for next week.

Zach - The way I think about 100% is if you take your car to a mechanic, if you've had a car, there are always little things. Cupholder rubber wears out. Fold-out cupholders wear out. Lightbulbs need replacement. Radio antenna needs replacement. Things in addition to alternator, transmission, etc., that's why I put in the word "maintenence" of the elevator. I want to prevent, as in the electrical repair community, do preventative maintenence. Spend a couple of dollars now. Save hundreds or thousands of dollars later. That's what I want to do with the elevator. That's what I was working on tonight, the call box and light. It "worked" but wiring was poor, close to shorting out, could have been a hazard. Don't want to turn people away from NB because the elevator is broken. Elevator is much more important to me because don't have an option anymore. As a result of the process, I've been building a Noisebridge Wiki page on the elevator. Took pictures. Sections on repairs and upgrades. Ways people can plug in and volunteer. I want to take a more active role, and the community is starting to see this as something that should be cared for. This is a step to removing a financial roadblock to working on this.

? - Perhaps instead of defining 100%, defer to the Wiki for operational optimum parameters.

Trent - Another way without invoking a specific document, instead of saying "safe and 100% functional", say "members of the community need to buy into and agree that the elevator is functional and safe".

Zach - Not trying to counter to be difficult, but that sounds like it might lead to requiring getting consensus to a consensed item. On deferring to a Wiki: that has an advantage of having a document/checklist, which should be relatively transparent. I will continue to work on it because I must. Darryl helped today with laser cutter skills that I don't have. I think it's a moot point, if there was something that was fuzzy, and I don't know what that would be (like an add-on?), and that was fuzzy? By definition that would make it not count. The community and treasurer would say "that's not required for the elevator to function" and that would be ok. Nobody wants a gate that gets jammed off the track. Nobody wants a callbox that doesn't work that's held up by masking tape with 100 live volts that they can shock themselves on.

Katherine - I think it's strage we're having this conversation at all. If the stairs caved in, we would just fix it. The elevator is broken, and people who give a lot to the space use it, and even if they don't, it should be accessible. If someone has a problem using NB money to fix the problem, that's wrong, and we should take care of each other. We go to great lengths to make this a safe space, let's make it a reliable space too. We have things that are janky, but we make them work. Let's make the elevator work, and it's strange we keep coming back to it and we should give money to this process.

Adrian - I definitely agree, this seems like a strange discussion. Clarifying question: in future, does using elevator money require big-C consensus to use it?

Zach - The think the way it works is I email the treasurer on the public noisebridge-discuss list, to say, I need $35 for elevator lights, send links, and everyone sees that. If someone has an objection, they make it. If not, John buys the part and mails it. The reason we do this with consensus now is so that's less necessary on a purchase-by-purchase basis.

Adrian - By going through the mailing list is less machinery than seeking consensus?

Zach - I'll try to answer this as best I can. Wish John was here, but he has another obligation. Don't want to put words in John's mouth: he keeps track of the money and where it is spent. When I buy $35 lightbulbs, it's $400 (fund size) - $35, and that shows up in public records. Reduce red-tape around the process. The way I see it, the elevator is broken a lot, and what usually happens (in the last 7 years), people say "oh, that kind of sucks", wait for the landlord or someone else's initiaive, and depending on how broken it is, controls how long it takes to get fixed. It's a long drawn out process. If the front door was broken, it would never happen. It would just be fixed. I want that kind of care/expiditeness for the elevator. By having a consensus item and discussion, it raises awareness that Noisebridge has this thing that needs work. Elevator is an ongoing project.

Darryl - The process around this shouldn't be much different from the equipment fund. The fact that there's any process around getting this, which is vital accessability equipment, is rediculous. If it's necessary, that's nonsense to discuss it.

Adrian - Whoever is repairing the elevator should be able to go buy what they need, right now, and know they will be reimbursed from the elevator fund.

Darryl - $400 a year is less than half of a philanthropist. We just added 6. We can accord a bunch of elevator fund.

Trent - If there's critical infrastructure that needs fixing, it can go through little-c consensus. Go to the treasurer. The process is not document.

Zach - There are some things about the elevator that are exception. That process is not well documented or well known. Initially went to Patrick because I thought he was still treasurer. A big question in this project is that it is the landlord's responsibility. Do we want for them? How do we (as a space) get reimbursed for it? Again, if this was the front door, I don't anticipate a long discussion. Someone would just go change the lock in an hour. It's reasonable to have the discussion and be concerned about this. I've had a lot of person-to-person conversations and tried a lot of avenues before bringing this up as a big-c consensus item. For people who haven't been in the space in recent weeks, especially on Tuesday, this might feel really out of the blue, and that's not the case, and that's been a huge part of my frustration with this entire process. This is something I have been championing since July. It would be great to publicize these (little-c) processes more, but the process isn't bulletproof either.

Trent - I told Zach this already: I do support this consensus proposal. The reason that the elevator took so long is because the elevator company physically locked the elevator, and they left it locked for 6 weeks. They finally came and "did the repair" where it was usable but unsafe when they unlocked it. There was some strangeness about locking/unlocking safe/unsasfe. Long talk with landlord, and were locked out by the elevator company for 6 weeks.

Kevin - How does the equipment fund balance get decided? What if the $400 vanishes, what then?

Zach - Can try to answer that: Part of why I chose $400 figure -- John was surprised it was low. Chosen very low on purpose. This is supposed to be a baby step. Challenges in process show how necessary it was to take a baby step. Chose a small dollar amount so that some amount of money set aside for the elevator is a good thing. If we agree it's a good thing, we can have another (hopefully easier) discussion should we need to expand. I'm down to take that through consensus. Let's just take a baby-step in that direction. Also, this is the first time I've heard about the elevator lockdown. On a larger note: I could not come to the space to continue learning some software, or come to a class. I was email and trying to talk to people to get updates. Was getting lots of vague messages. Sometimes heard elevator was partly working. If I take a bus and it isn't working, I turn around and go home. Had that happen. How do we handle dissemenation of this information, especially to members who need elevator access? All we had was an "elevator broken" sign, and sometimes it would go away, and that was infuriating. Many conditions require a lot of energy to be mobile, and get assistance to the space (para-transit). 1-3 days ahead to schedule a window. To find out it's broken after that is not a good way.

Kevin - I would like to return to how equipment fund is funded. How?

Trent - Equipment fund was a grant from Google with no strings attached. $15,000 once, and then another $15,000 on accident. Didn't want to spend it in case they wanted it back, but they said to deduct it from future invoices. No renewal process. Don't know how much is left. There's a wiki page which may (or may not) have information on it.

Adrian - ~$6000 left.

Kevin - Given ease of equipment fund allocation requests, how about adding verbiage to allow replenishing elevator fund from equipment fund?

Zach - That's probably a different consensus item.

Adrian - Get that written out formally as a separate consensus item.

Trent - We really do want to pass this next week.


Longer discussion items belong here. This is the last part of the meeting so that people can break off and continue their discussion afterwards.

Zach - Proposes a discussion on how consensus works at Noisebridge.

Trent - During the process of the elevator consensus item, people believed that this consensus item was passed at the meeting last week, but others felt that it hadn't reached consensus. This created a really big miscommunication due to people having different versions of the consensus process that was "the" way. In my view of what happened, we have a rich oral culture that breaks down when the wiki differs from the oral history. This lead to the situation being ripe for a miscommunication which, in my view, is what happened for this consensus item. This lead me to believe that we need a more conrete definition of what consensus is. Oral culture isn't going to cut it and we need a way that doesn't involve having to talk to every single person in the community.

Ryan - Has there ever been a proposal of making a large pre-discussion chat somewhere on consensus items.

Roy - There is a wiki page called "Current Consensus Items" and items can be sent out over the email list and a discussion there. There could also be a slack channel. I don't believe the proposal made it on the Current Consensus Items wiki page.

Adrian - It's good to get things on the wiki to have a record of how consensus works. But on the wiki you don't get notified when things change, and I don't check the wiki to see that things have changes. I agree that a slack channel would help.

Travis - I have a question. Is it just me, or does it seem like the meeting notes haven't been going out to noisebridge-discuss.

Trent - unfortunately meetings haven't been happening every week.

Kevin - You can enable the setting on wikimedia to notify you of changes.

Adrian - there is a bias against people not using slack.

Zach - at least for the past couple meetings (when consensus was discussed) meeting notes have definitely been going out. I want to talk about my view on how the process worked and my take away on it. Talking to people in person has been super helpful and made things way better. There's a few things I want to address. Firstly, does consensus require slack? Do we want to require the slack application as part of consensus process? We need to change that process then. I have been treated very differently as a noisebridge member for not using a program that is not created by or run by noisebridge. This has influenced my ability to pass a consensus item. There is a huge divide between people who use Slack and those who do not. To try and follow the consensus, I read the consensus process wiki page and talked with many long time members. The consensus process wiki page is marked do not edit and seems like a good reference. I saw that this consensus process on the wiki process -- there was lots of discussions, lots of meetings about how people deliberately tried to manipulate the consensus process for shady ends. I think there is also a misunderstanding that we as a community have about how the consensus process works. I started this as a little c consensus item and I asked J if I could start a consensus item and he suggested that I use little c consensus first. I waited two weeks and nothing had happened at all (keep in mind I started this in July). At the next meeting, I said that I'd like to start a formal consensus process. Nobody at that meeting was super clear on how consensus works, partly since it's been so long that we're out of practice. We're trying to engage in a complicated process for which the rule book is missing and we haven't practiced. So, even though I emailed the discuss with a formal proposal, answered many questions over email and in person, and although I did the best I could to make this an open process, since I was not on slack, I was cut out of a separate set of discussion on slack about this process. so aside from a couple people who I worked with in this process, there are apparently other discussions on Slack, but none of those people reached out to me and those discussions happened exclusively on Slack. My understanding is that consensus is coming to a meeting and bringing yourself and following the process. It says here on the wiki page, that a member must be physically present (or find a proxy to come for them) to block a proposal. A member who is physically not present is assenting to a consensus proposal. I have heard about "Quorum" and blocking without being present, but this isn't documented anywhere.

Ryan - A big issue is just missed / locked out communication channels. I was wondering if there was a way to get slack shown a bit easier; maybe people people can see it, but not fully access it, or slack tells members who aren't here that they should check this, since we don't livestream this.

Daryl - if someone cares, they can read the meeting notes

Zach - When the consensus item is proposed, there is meeting notes for that. A lot of that makes sense, but I think part of the point Daryl was making is that Noisebridge has processes for informing the community of what is happening, but if people choose not to attend the meetings, not to read the meeting notes, then they are choosing to not engage with the community and the consensus process.

Ryan - It would be nice to notify people who are online of there being a new meeting and notes pad. The only reason that the proposal wasn't posted on the current consensus items wiki page was that no-one at the last three meetings mentioned it. I think having a physical copy of the consensus process in the space would be really helpful. I would love to hear from other people.

Trent - in the wiki page, and no-where that I can find, does it say that you must post the exact wording, but my understanding is that you must post the exact wording, so it's not clear if we have to do that.

Zack - [quotes wiki page on editing consensus items] It says the text can change from the first meeting to the second, as long as the change isn't "radically different." It isn't clear what qualifies as a "radical" change.

Trent - I sent out what I thought was the consensus item text, but it apparently it was not.

Zack - I said that exact text (the current text), give or take a couple clauses, but it didn't get put in the meeting notes correctly. The changes that were made were not large changes. but the larger issue is that people who might care or object did not reach out to me with questions or attend the meetings.

Trent - I know what happened. The people who I talked to, since there was not a formal text, thought the proposal was not being formally consensed yet.

Zack - The meetings notes that went out clearly stated that there was a formal consensus item proposed - it made special note of this. I think people need to come to meetings and read the meeting notes if they want to be involved in consensus items.

Adrian - I think it's important that the exact text of the consensus item needs to be posted. I shouldn't have to attend every meeting to know what's going on.

Zack - to think a formal consensus is not even happening, is just a matter of not paying attention. how should people be informed? by the meeting notes and by meetings. Maybe we should change the part in the wiki about altering text at the second meeting. If you can alter it in the second meeting, what's the point of having the exact text proposed in the first place?

Trent - the only canonical place we have is the meeting notes.

Roy - What about the consensus item wiki page.

Zack - I think it would help the community to have a big printout of exactly what the consensus process is. Lets cut out the unnecessary confusion, on the mailing list, on the wiki, and in the space, let's have physical signage in the space. consensus is how we make our important decisions. For the consensus process to be even a little bit vague is really a problem.

Trent - can we say that we're agreeing we should do those things, and that, you can talk to Zack about more place through going that direction and talking to each other.

Zack - I volunteer to print signage on my 11 x 17 printer at home. the 11 x 17 printer at NB is SOOO shitty. It's like another elevator [people laugh]. That thing blows.

Trent - lets schedule an event to do that stuff.

Trent - You may not get any receipts if you don't have a meeting.

Adrian - does it require a consensus process to change / clarify the consensus process.

Zack - Absolutely. how is consensus notified to the community? Whose responsibility is it to notify the community? There should be clear verbiage on what the notification and consensus process is. Do people have objections to the current physically present at meeting part?

Trent - you can't just skate around and block it from Berlin. Also, there should be information on the process that tells the person trying to consense an item should make a good faith effort to reach out to members of the community.

Zack - we should define what reaching out is.

Trent - reaching out for me is sending email to people who are interested.

Zack - The only people who brought up issues with me were Trent and John. I wish me and John had coordinated in person first, in hindsight. But I think that it's concerning that not more people were discussing with me.

Trent - for example, patrick pmed me saying that he agreed with me. I think people didn't want to pile on to this concern. There was a lot of back and forth and no-one wanted to pile on or interject.

Zack - That makes sense. but I wish we could make the discussion more inclusive somehow. I hope we can find a way that makes people feel comfortable raising concerns off of slack.

End of meeting: Zach, Adrian, and Roy agree to work together and with anyone else interested towards clarifying the consensus process at NB in a concise written form. Eventually this is envisioned as a new consensus proposal for clarifying a "new" (really just clarified) consensus process itself.

Postponed Items:

Zach - How do we handle disseminating elevator information - clear process and signs, clear communication process Zach - We could have more information about how to actually spend money on critical infrastructure at Noisebridge. Kevin - How do we allocate more money to the elevator fund once depleted or in the future.

Discussion Items[edit]

If any important discussion happens, it should be happening after forward progress is made during consensus.

End of Meeting[edit]

  1. Return the membership binder to its rightful location.
  2. Discuss any items for which there was not time during the meeting.
  3. Enjoy the company of your fellow hacker, robot, or robothacker.

Note taker posts the notes[edit]

  1. Clean and tidy the meeting notes including removing all these really verbose instructions.
  2. Fill out the short summary at the top listing just announcements, consensus items, discussion topics, and names of new members and philanthropists.
  3. Copy paste the notes to the next meeting page. (They will become Last meeting at midnight.)
  4. Email the meeting summary to Noisebridge Discuss and Noisebridge Announce lists.
  5. CC on the email and if there are new members and philanthropists.
  6. Edit the Current Consensus Items if anything is proposed for consensus next week.
  7. Edit the Consensus Items History if anything was reached consensus or failed to reach consensus this week.

Fun things to do after[edit]

  • Reprise of the Hackernationale. [This is anarchy - we do what the wiki says!]
  • PGP Key Signing could happen now (if it doesn't happen before any given Meeting). Ask others around the space or check the list to see who wants in on the action.