Editing
Meeting Notes 2017 01 03
(section)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
= Consensus = How consensus works: * We don't collectively vote on things. * In general if you want to do something, do it (Doocracy) -- if you're not sure it's OK, ask around first. * Some times we have to do things as an institution, and the whole membership has to feel comfortable. * We do this through consensus. Over two meetings, a proposal is announced, discussed, reviewed, then voted upon * What can happen is, there is some amount of disagreement, then we discuss until it seems clear there's agreement. * Members, if they believe the proposal is a bad idea, can formally Block a proposal. * Blocking has consequences, and it is a rarely played tactic of "last resort". * Once upon a time, somebody wanted to turn NB into a temple... blocked! == [[ Consensus Items History | Proposals from last week ]] == ''nope'' == [[ Current Consensus Items | Proposals for next week ]] == ''New from John Shutt: 50K fiscal sponsorship for investigative journalism in SF'' === Proposal: 50K fiscal sponsorship for Investigative Journalism in SF === The Bay Area is in the midst of massive change. Whether it is the rising political power of technology companies, the fundamental reshaping of the city through construction, or the evolving stance of the region towards the federal government, understanding San Francisco and its surroundings is a key part of understanding the broader political environment we live in. In the midst of this, the region is lacking nimble, well-resourced journalistic efforts to expose the political mechanics going on below the surface of these changes, and bring detailed coverage to a broader audience. In 2017, we are seeking to raise money to try a small experiment in community-supported journalism. San Francisco All City (SFAC) is envisioned as a muckraking publisher focused on the intricacies of Bay Area politics, a book club with its own dedicated investigative journalism unit, and a force for increased transparency and reform in local government, all wrapped into one. Noisebridge will act as a fiscal sponsor for SFAC, directed by John Shutt, for a six month trial period starting in February 2017. SFAC plans to raise $54,000 and donate $2,500 for fiscal sponsorship. SFAC will donate 5% of any additional money raised to Noisebridge's general fund. SFAC may seek consensus to renew fiscal sponsorship at the end of the six month trial if things go well. SFAC plans to purchase film and audio recording equipment and hardware for video editing, and may seek a separate consensus proposal for a matching grant from the equipment fund, in which case the equipment would live at Noisebridge and be available for general use by the community. * John (@pemulis) - Seeking fiscal sponsorship from Noisebridge for an investigative journalism project. See full proposal in previous meeting notes. Goal: $50-54K. * Steve: tell us more about the inv. jour. * John: has a largish story about a real estsate development in southeast SF (the shipyard project) that he wants to write * John: The Examiner and Chronicle did a poor job. It's one of the most polluted places in the country. 10,500 residential units being put up. Falsified records ... misleading ledes on hometown papers * Greg: trusts John, but has seen embezzling at other non-profits. Should there be a separate treasurer? Technically this is a conflict of interest. * John: the equipment fund, for example, he set up a consensus proposal to ensure there would be institutional consensus before he could make a purchase. Mostly he deposits cash from the cash box, distributes cheques, etc. Willing to hand off responsibilities. * Greg2: Why do it this way, instead of having your own non-profit? * John: there's a ton of overhead to setup a new npo * Greg2: What are the risks? * Liz: Why do this thru Noisebridge, why a journalism thing with Noisebridge? Why us, why the hackerspace? Center for Investigative Journalism? There's kickstarters etc. for that sort of thing. Why make a lot of work for Noisebridge? She set up a npo, cost about $2k, plus a bunch of paperwork. * John: didn't go to CIR because they want this to be it's own thing. Went with Noisebridge because he already has an association with us. Five percent of donations would go to Noisebridge. * John: $33K goes to one subcontractor. Some amount goes to video editing equipment, which would be available to Noisebridge * John: It's an opportunity for Noisebridge to increase its income, which may help lead to purchasing its own space * Zach: from southside SF. Infant deaths, toxic water, going to war with the City. Do you want to initiate that? Might bring negative attention to this community space. Tradeoff. * John: Cocreater of Bayleaks * Zach: why noisebridge is good, we have all sorts of resources here. Hackers, networking, technologies, etc. * Naomi: When you ask an organization to be a fiscal sponsor, you're also positioning yourself to use the organization as advisors, mentors, to be involved. IS there a strong presence of people who know the ins-and-outs of investigative journalism here? Do you sense that John? * John: there's various ways to empower investigative journalism through the space, volunteers, monetarily. Many people also seem keenly interested in the problem. * Kevin: what are the financial risks * John: we've taken on reports insurance, libel, invasion of privacy, accidents during onsites * Danny: interested in seeing Noisebridge do investigative journalism, generally. Not as interested in the topic(s) John proposes to do with Bayleaks. * Danny: we should seek a grant to support reporting around technologists, and noisebridge, start small, grow not in a direction specifically investigative journalism, but about technology-driven public interest work. * Danny: But, we support Bayleaks, we do technology things to support them -example of story we'd write about noisebridge * Danny: What are some other stories that could build over time, until one day people say "wow, they're the new Bay Guardian" * John: Public works contracts. Huge corpus of data nobody has the time to analyze. * John: was talking with former TechCrunch editor. Interested in looking at firms tied to foreign intelligence, cyberweapons companies. * John: those topics are more aligned with Noisebridge's raison d'etre. * Danny: Knight Foundation provides funding for talking about technology to the press. * Danny: nobody wants to give money about a particular story, but about a new way of journalism. * Trent: consultants vs employees... we pay them to do time-limited jobs. * Trent: We're not really in a position to "hire" anybody. How does your organization do that, employee, contractor * John: I would be a contractor to noisebridge. Other writers would be contractors to noisebridge. * John: against using noisebridge general funds to pay contractors. Instead the $50K goes to contractors, and nb gets a cut. * John: Big driver: tried to do freelance journalism, it was hard to make a job out of it. * John: goal of this project is to get community-funded journalism, big grants, but only about 10%, more than half from small donors. That can give journalism a point of strength. Community-driven journalism * John: A lot of people are planning to contribute to this. * John: This may also be an example to other projects, teams here, to inspire them, to seek fiscal funding, grants, to make their projects happen. * Trent: if a person with fiscal sponsorship wanted to hire somebody, is there a Noisebridge precedent? * Naomi: those powers are not specifically enumerated, or perhaps clear at this time. A lot of this proposal entails a lot of precedent-setting for NB. Should be very carefully considered. * Naomi: We're 20 minutes into this, how can we continue the discussion after tonight's meeting? * Alex: Send a sunmmary email to the "discuss" mailing list. Subject: Consensus discussion about inv. jour. * John's email: jds@riseup.net * Meeting notes from last year with our fiscal sponsorship policy: https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2016_09_13
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Noisebridge are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (see
Noisebridge:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Log in
Request account
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
English
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Dig in!
Noisebridge
- Status: MOVED
- Donate
- ABOUT
- Accessibility
- Vision
- Blog
Manual
MANUAL
Visitors
Participation
Community Standards
Channels
Operations
Events
EVENTS
Guilds
GUILDS
- Meta
- Electronics
- Fabrication
- Games
- Music
- Library
- Neuro
- Philosophy
- Funding
- Art
- Crypto
- Documentation/Wiki
Wiki
Recent Changes
Random Page
Help
Categories
(Edit)
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information