Meeting Notes 2014 04 29: Difference between revisions
m Secretaribot says its time for the 311th Noisebridge notes |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Don't forget to '''post the meeting notes to the wiki''' and e-mail the discussion list with a short summary. | 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 [https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Category:Meeting_Notes The 311th Meeting of Noisebridge]. Note-taker: | These are the notes from the [https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Category:Meeting_Notes The 311th Meeting of Noisebridge]. Note-taker: JARROD HICKS; Moderator: JOHN ELLIS. | ||
* '''One or two bullet points of high-level meeting summary.''' | * '''One or two bullet points of high-level meeting summary.''' | ||
= Short announcements and events = | = Short announcements and events = | ||
None | |||
= [[ Membership Binder ]] = | = [[ Membership Binder ]] = | ||
* | * Qbit, Week 4+ | ||
* Hephestus, Week 4+ | |||
* Kate Kligman, 4+ | |||
* Xavier Mendoza, 4, Not present for consensus. | |||
= Financial Report = | = Financial Report = | ||
* | * None given | ||
= Consensus items = | = Consensus items = | ||
== [[ Consensus Items History | Proposals from last week ]] == | == [[ Consensus Items History | Proposals from last week ]] == | ||
''( | ''revert to Member / associate member structure for recognized forms of NB participation. (bureaucracy Pull Request #35) Condition: this decision in no way ratifies the language used in the Policy Manual in the bureaucracy repo.'' | ||
Naomi: most people thing of what are now members as associate members, and the name is still used. Council members is only being used by council members that are using the title to assert authority. Otherwise "Capital M" members is still being used. | |||
Cynthia: what about calling them "consensed" | |||
Monad: just revert it. | |||
Bill: can we describe the process? | |||
Naomi: the process for associate is making a wiki page, getting 4 endorsements. This is becoming part of the club without going through consensus. | |||
Deja: so then you are a member? | |||
Naomi: Associate members cannot block | |||
Kevin: A while ago new access control was tried out. Only Members and associate members could be in the space. | |||
Monad: A person can be asked to leave if they are not an associate member or Member. | |||
Deja: I have an issue with this, people are bullying and kick out people with out sponsors. No good. | |||
Naomi: We already have a situation where anyone can tell anyone to leave if they are threatened. Sometimes this can be silly, or a power trip. | |||
Deja: there needs to be more definite reasons why. | |||
Kevin: The only issue I have with this proposal. Since i think the associate class should be removed. | |||
Adrian: The whole point is to remove people who don't want to particpate at a minimum level. We should fix the undoing of the thing that is broken then do the next thing. I'd rather see tiny steps toward directions. | |||
Emerson: what is the process for becoming a member: | |||
Naomi: explains | |||
John: how would we do access control | |||
Kevin: 24/7 | |||
Naomi: I think the removing the associate member class is a | |||
Dan: if we are going to discuss the removal of the associate member category, we should do it in the simplest language, what ever is easiest to use to use during discussion. | |||
Naomi: There are still places on the github. where the titles are confused. | |||
Kevin: I'm sorry to dump several things on this proposal. Ref. github policy manual and the wording of the membership markdowns. I don't expect that this policy manual has been consensed on in the first place and consenting on this is consenting on the document that is not under consensus. | |||
Naomi: Would your agree on adding language to this proposal that mentions that we are consenting on this language change but not on the policy manual that is not consented. | |||
Kevin: we still haven't consensed on an initial state: | |||
Adrian: do you have a proposal in mind. | |||
Kevin: there was a previous proposal. I thing the policy manual is too verbose and should be simplified into a tighter policy manual. | |||
Naomi: The additional language would define the scope of the proposal. | |||
Adrian: we can continue to update the language. | |||
Naomi: I don't think this language change is substantial enough to warrant another week of discussion. Only that this is a notice regarding the scope of the change, but the official wording of the proposal is the same. | |||
'''Consensed, with the official note in the notes that this only changes the wording of the text of the policy document and does not address the fact that the policy document is still yet consensed.''' | |||
== [[ Current Consensus Items | Proposals for next week ]] == | == [[ Current Consensus Items | Proposals for next week ]] == | ||
Revision as of 23:41, 29 April 2014
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 311th Meeting of Noisebridge. Note-taker: JARROD HICKS; Moderator: JOHN ELLIS.
- One or two bullet points of high-level meeting summary.
Short announcements and events
None
- Qbit, Week 4+
- Hephestus, Week 4+
- Kate Kligman, 4+
- Xavier Mendoza, 4, Not present for consensus.
Financial Report
- None given
Consensus items
revert to Member / associate member structure for recognized forms of NB participation. (bureaucracy Pull Request #35) Condition: this decision in no way ratifies the language used in the Policy Manual in the bureaucracy repo.
Naomi: most people thing of what are now members as associate members, and the name is still used. Council members is only being used by council members that are using the title to assert authority. Otherwise "Capital M" members is still being used.
Cynthia: what about calling them "consensed"
Monad: just revert it.
Bill: can we describe the process?
Naomi: the process for associate is making a wiki page, getting 4 endorsements. This is becoming part of the club without going through consensus.
Deja: so then you are a member?
Naomi: Associate members cannot block
Kevin: A while ago new access control was tried out. Only Members and associate members could be in the space.
Monad: A person can be asked to leave if they are not an associate member or Member.
Deja: I have an issue with this, people are bullying and kick out people with out sponsors. No good.
Naomi: We already have a situation where anyone can tell anyone to leave if they are threatened. Sometimes this can be silly, or a power trip.
Deja: there needs to be more definite reasons why.
Kevin: The only issue I have with this proposal. Since i think the associate class should be removed.
Adrian: The whole point is to remove people who don't want to particpate at a minimum level. We should fix the undoing of the thing that is broken then do the next thing. I'd rather see tiny steps toward directions.
Emerson: what is the process for becoming a member:
Naomi: explains
John: how would we do access control
Kevin: 24/7
Naomi: I think the removing the associate member class is a
Dan: if we are going to discuss the removal of the associate member category, we should do it in the simplest language, what ever is easiest to use to use during discussion.
Naomi: There are still places on the github. where the titles are confused.
Kevin: I'm sorry to dump several things on this proposal. Ref. github policy manual and the wording of the membership markdowns. I don't expect that this policy manual has been consensed on in the first place and consenting on this is consenting on the document that is not under consensus.
Naomi: Would your agree on adding language to this proposal that mentions that we are consenting on this language change but not on the policy manual that is not consented.
Kevin: we still haven't consensed on an initial state:
Adrian: do you have a proposal in mind.
Kevin: there was a previous proposal. I thing the policy manual is too verbose and should be simplified into a tighter policy manual.
Naomi: The additional language would define the scope of the proposal.
Adrian: we can continue to update the language.
Naomi: I don't think this language change is substantial enough to warrant another week of discussion. Only that this is a notice regarding the scope of the change, but the official wording of the proposal is the same.
Consensed, with the official note in the notes that this only changes the wording of the text of the policy document and does not address the fact that the policy document is still yet consensed.
(Add any new items for consensus to the Current Consensus Items page.)
Discussion Notes
Attendance
- List of names and short summary. For bonus points, link wiki user pages.
Now that the meeting is over, don't forget to post the meeting notes to the wiki and e-mail the discussion list with a short summary.