Membership/Membership Team

From Noisebridge
(Redirected from Membership Team)
Jump to: navigation, search


Who is a member?

Noisebridge Membership is the page to hold the definitions we've agreed on; this page is a work page.

Team to write a detailed proposal on the rights and responsibilities of Noisebridge members. Sign up on this page and we'll self-organize to do it.

Rachel (team lead)

Skory (some guy)

Jacob (nobody special)

Turkshead 16:12, 15 October 2008 (PDT)

Mark (Coppertop)

Audrey (note taker)

A bunch of people met before the general meeting on Tues 3-7-09. The questions considered were:

  • should we have membership hiatus? what would it mean, how would it work?
  • what about kicking people out?
  • should we automatically de-memberify for non-payment and non-communication?
  • is the current membership process working out or does it need to be changed?

We came up with recommendations for all of these:


  • ok to have month-to-month basis
  • to do this, notify the treasurer of the start & projected end dates (if any)
  • to come back, notify the treasurer that you're back
  • you cannot block consensus during that period
  • still OK to show up
  • if the hiatus reason stops, suggest stopping hiatus
  • no need to re-member-ify

Removal for nonpayment[edit]

Under certain circumstances a member would automatically be removed:

  • no dues payment for 3 months
  • no communication for same 3 months
  • treasurer will be trying to communicate using the contact information given, at least once per month
  • no restriction on rejoining

Current process[edit]

It is possibly offputting to new people. We don't think any change to the process is needed, but in meetings we should be clearer about the purpose (getting to know you) rather than focusing on describing the process. If you come back, we already know you, no waiting period need apply.


Old stuff below, retained for historical purposes. Eventually it can be deleted and the view history can be used for historical purposes.

A bunch of people met before the general meeting on Tues 10-21 and talked a lot. We're not ready to make any official recommendations yet but we think one more meeting should do it. We'll meet again on Tues 10-28.

Membership form[edit]

File:Noisebridgemembership.pdf or File:Noisebridgemembership.doc. (rtf is unwanted, OMG)

Proposed Process[edit]

1. fill out top third of the form
2. put the form in the binder
3. each meeting, there is a standing agenda item to read the applicants out of the binder
4. a month passes, during which the applicant gets 2 sponsors to sign their form
5. after this month, the applicant is approved by the general membership.  at that point they fill out the bottom
third of the form.  It is perfectly acceptable to postpone the approval until the next meeting (or the next, etc) .
6. the new member gives the Treasurer their dues, and the Secretary the form
During the month, anyone can look in the binder at the names.  If you have a problem with one of the applicants,
take time during that month to try and resolve the problem.  You may ask another member to be a proxy for you to
either help resolve the problem (preferred) or to voice your objection at the approval meeting.

Meeting Notes[edit]

Rachel started off the meeting with a list of questions we need to answer:

  • How does one become a member?/What does it take to be a member?
  • What priveleges is a member entitled to?
  • What should a member not do?/What is our code of conduct?
  • If a member becomes a problem, how do we expel them?

How does one become a member?/What does it take to be a member?


3 month period. someone vouches for them integrate with the community before you attempt to join it. what can't you do in the first three months? the community decides if this person will be a part of the group

it is easier to not let someone in than it is to get rid of them later.

are we viewing the community as the same as the space? do we want to make a distinction between people who have keys and can use the space and members?

decouple keyholders and members. "I trust you, you can have a key"

NYC Resistor - you must be invited and then accepted by the membership. more exclusive. the space is small

Enki - about Metalab - new people are encouraged to contribute. not a formal process. Growth is a positive thing. If we have a lot of members, we can expand.

Jake - doesn't agree with NYC Resistor format. People have come here and complained about their process

(Jake) Honorary Members - visitors who will have keys. Enki is an example. Suggests mailing keys to people who we wish would show up. Not worried about people showing up.

Safety concern - should we have a list of people who have keys. lock is easily picked. Jake doesn't think we should be concerned about knowing who has keys

fill out a form?? Simple web form - we can see who is the new members. form with two cosigners to vouch. (What about people new to the area? After three months of hanging out, you know someone.)

Three month period will help weed out people who will lose interest quickly.

Application fee will become first month dues if they're ultimately accepted into the group.

the process we came up with at the end of the discussion:

1. applicant puts name on website

2. time passes

3. fill out form

4. finds two members to vouch

5. anyone with an objection within 3 month time period should speak up. Some objections can be resolved. Some cannot. Approve by consensus.

What priveleges is a member entitled to?

key to the space

right to participate in the consensus process.

What should a member not do? What is our code of conduct?

Jake - rather not have a formal code of conduct Rachel - code of conduct - "Be Nice"

"Be Nice and Be Excellent to Each Other"

If someone is a problem, how do we expell them?

we talked before about the membership holding a vote. member in question can then appeal to the board before being expelled.

do we take their key away? If they still have access, how does it work to ban people?

Peter strongly suggests that we have a process in place before the problem ever arises.

Jake - lets not use force, use reason instead. make them not want to be here - that will be more effective than throwing someone out.

Enki - have a set of guidelines. board decides

temporary suspension?

2/3 majority as required by law.

no conclusion here. more discussion is necessary