Editing Meeting Notes 2013 11 05
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
== [[ Current Consensus Items | Proposals for next week ]] == | == [[ Current Consensus Items | Proposals for next week ]] == | ||
* | *''Proposal to require a minimum number of members present for consensus - Blocked'' | ||
Brief discussion. No proxy means to adjust/modify the proposal. Blocked as paralyzing to the consensus process. | Brief discussion. No proxy means to adjust/modify the proposal. Blocked as paralyzing to the consensus process. | ||
* | *''Proposal to revoke the members only consensus items - Blocked '' | ||
It is argued that the recent members only proposal is exclusive and ridiculous; it suppresses people's voice in the space. This is responded to with various comments. Leaving things as they are is not a better way to improve Noisebridge, if someone has designed a better proposal/solution, please propose it. Work is being done in good faith and the Associate Membership process is being improved to be more accessible and better documented for new Noisebridge users. It is argued that these new procedures will in time make Noisebridge safer and more inclusive of people and projects that should be happening and exclude people and projects that prevent them. As hackers, we should be willing to fix a broken system, or at least try. Associate member sponsorship is given to just about anyone that requests it, with the side effect that the prospective member has now met more people in the community. This policy, while understandable in Noisebridge's context, should not be called some sort of "radical inclusion". | It is argued that the recent members only proposal is exclusive and ridiculous; it suppresses people's voice in the space. This is responded to with various comments. Leaving things as they are is not a better way to improve Noisebridge, if someone has designed a better proposal/solution, please propose it. Work is being done in good faith and the Associate Membership process is being improved to be more accessible and better documented for new Noisebridge users. It is argued that these new procedures will in time make Noisebridge safer and more inclusive of people and projects that should be happening and exclude people and projects that prevent them. As hackers, we should be willing to fix a broken system, or at least try. Associate member sponsorship is given to just about anyone that requests it, with the side effect that the prospective member has now met more people in the community. This policy, while understandable in Noisebridge's context, should not be called some sort of "radical inclusion". | ||
| Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
Blocked as premature at this point. | Blocked as premature at this point. | ||
* | *''Proposal to improve door security discussed, with proposal to be further detailed for next week'' | ||
Intention is to ensure that Noisebridge be secure when not occupied. JC will flesh out proposal further. | Intention is to ensure that Noisebridge be secure when not occupied. JC will flesh out proposal further. | ||
* | *''Proposal that the list of members and associate members is not a secret, and that the secretary keep the wiki posting accurate and non vandalized." | ||
With the current changes in membership procedures, it is proposed that the list of existing members be made more available. | With the current changes in membership procedures, it is proposed that the list of existing members be made more available. | ||