Meeting Notes 2013 11 05

From Noisebridge
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (meant to be an associate member application, no longer necessary)
Line 83: Line 83:
  
 
== [[ 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.
 +
 +
''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 incisive 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".
 +
 +
Blocked as premature at this point.
 +
 
''Proposal to improve door security discussed, with proposal to be further detailed for next week''
 
''Proposal to improve door security discussed, with proposal to be further detailed for next week''
  

Revision as of 11:22, 7 November 2013

You should read the meeting instructions forthwith!
Don't forget to post the meeting notes to the wiki and e-mail the discussion list with a short summary.

These are the notes from the The 288th Meeting of Noisebridge. Note-taker: Kinnard / Jayson; Moderator: Jarrod.

  • Hillaire's membership not consensed
  • Proposal regarding the suspension of members adjusted and consensed
  • Procedures regarding associate members, left over from last meeting, cleaned up and consensed
  • Proposal to improve door security discussed, with proposal to be further detailed for next week
  • Proposal to require a minimum number of members present for consensus blocked
  • Proposal to revoke the members only consensus items blocked
  • 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."


Contents

Short announcements and events

  • Bitcoin Class Nov 18th


Membership Binder

  • Robin Noel (1st week)
  • Kinnard (1st week)
  • Raul ?? (1st week)
  • Alex Perez (1st week)
  • Taylor Austin (3rd week)
  • Alex Peak<?> (2nd week)
  • Christina Olsen/De?? (3rd week)
  • Mary Peniscus<?> (4th+ week)
  • Hilaire<?> Nolette<?> (4th week, 2 sponsors)
  • Sam Kepper<?> (1st week, 2 sponsors)
  • Hillaire's membership not consensed

Encouraged to pursue associate membership

Financial Report

Via email

"oh hai, I missed the meeting from heartfelt sickness, but here is your current balance: $37,584.91

I have also paid Noisebridge's business insurance for this year, which came to $1285.20."


Consensus items

Proposals from last week

Proposal regarding the suspension of members adjusted and consensed

Agreed that consensus minus `n` is adequate to suspend a member of Noisebridge. Wording of proposal has been amended to read:

"No member shall be entitled to full participation in the consensus process around a proposal to suspend that person's membership of Noisebridge. Suspension is defined as: if a member has been suspended, they shall no longer be considered a member of Noisebridge for any purpose, including but not limited to, full participation in the consensus process."

Consensed.

Procedures regarding associate members, left over from last meeting, cleaned up and consensed

    • The following procedures will be cleaned up and added to the Consensus Items History and the How to become a Associate Member pages.

Proposal to create an Associate Member role and limit access to Noisebridge 24/7 to Member, Associate Member and those hosted by M and AM

Items discusssed:

  • Who can sponsor whom?

Monad proposes that 4 signatures are still needed, and at least two of those be "Capital-M" members, but the other signatures may come from associate members. It is proposed that any 4 signatures be sufficient to reduce some of the complexity of the process. Some possible abuses are brought up but after discussing them it is agreed that abuses will be dealt with as they come. In general, abusers of the associate membership process are not people who should be here, and can be dealt with as such. Any 4 signitures from Ms or AMs is deemed sufficient for AM.

  • Privacy of members? Pseudonym?

Associate members may use pseudonyms, and protect their identity as needed.

  • Can email or some other electronic method be acceptable for associate membership?

Yes, and see below.

  • Proposal to make associate membership digital-only, fed by the wiki page.

In line with this, it is suggested that the AM process go completely paperless. After some discussion of the details it is worked out that applying for associate membership is done online, through the wiki, no other means. Prospective AMs create a user page (pseudonym or otherwise) and sponsors endorse you by editing your wiki page and professing their endorsement.

  • What form can that take?

Sponsor ship can be a simple wiki edit on the sponsoree's page saying that the sponsor approves of the person.


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.

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 incisive 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".

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.

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.


Discussion Notes

OUTATIME

Attendance

Chris Cynthia Nick Eclaire Vandersnatch Dan Jade Ally Herman Doug Martin Jason Race/Mario Melissa Jason Evan Josh Kinnard Robin Noel Donald Jamie Andrew Carlos John Mike Jarvis Drew Jacob Sam Christian Hilare And others

Personal tools