@nthmost @flamsmark @creativetaboo @tensory Got the first draft up.
Hmmm... Actually, it would just take a 2/3 vote for the membership to say, "The board has no ability to pass policy decisions." I'm not sure if that's a feature or a bug, but at the same time, that would be overriding our bylaws as well. Only a majority is needed to do that, but I think the notification requirements are different.
@asweigart It's a feature. I feel that the whole point of lowering the voting threshold is to give Noisebridge greater autonomy.
Think of it this way, perhaps: if the loudest critics of Proposal No. #12 had been upset enough to think of that, they could have already done so and probably gotten together a simple majority. They also could have recalled the board and they didn't do that either. It's a far stretch, nothing to worry about -- and y'know? If it came to that? Democracy, man. It would be just fine.
(1) you mean in the space of time that Proposal #12 was released, between
the previous noisebridge meeting and the one that hasn't happened yet?
(2) I can assure you someone's already thought of that. They're just not
silly enough to write it on the list. :)
#1: Yes. During that window, passing anything with a 2/3 majority was (and
remains, afaik) legal.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM, nthmost notifications@github.com wrote:
> #1, you mean in the space of time that Proposal #12 was released, between
> the previous noisebridge meeting and the one that hasn't happened yet?
>
> #2, I can assure you someone's already thought of that. They're just not
> silly enough to write it on the list. :)
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Ari Lacenski <notifications@github.com
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > @asweigart https://github.com/asweigart It's a feature. I feel that
> > the
> > whole point of establishing a drastically lower bar for effective voting
> > is
> > to give Noisebridge-at-large greater autonomy.
> >
> > Think of it this way, perhaps: if the loudest critics of Proposal No.
> > #12https://github.com/noisebridge/cabal/issues/12had been upset enough
> > to think of that, they could have already done so and
> > probably gotten together a simple majority. They also could have recalled
> > the board and they didn't do that either. I see it as a far stretch,
> > nothing to worry about -- and y'know? If it came to that? Democracy, man.
> > It would be just fine.
> >
> > ##
> >
> > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
> > https://github.com/noisebridge/cabal/issues/18#issuecomment-38945638>
> > .
>
> ##
>
> Naomi Theora Most
> naomi@nthmost.com
> +1-415-728-7490
>
> skype: nthmost
>
> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>
> ##
>
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/noisebridge/cabal/issues/18#issuecomment-38947423
> .
@tensory You're missing the point. In _what structure_ would Noisebridge have been able to run a vote and pass it in the past 4 days?
I am indeed missing the point -- is my point invalid because there hasn't
been a meeting to run a vote at?
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:45 AM, nthmost notifications@github.com wrote:
> @tensory https://github.com/tensory You're missing the point. In _what
> structure_ would Noisebridge have been able to run a vote and pass it in
> the past 4 days?
>
> ##
>
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/noisebridge/cabal/issues/18#issuecomment-38947772
> .
> if the loudest critics of Proposal No. #12 had been upset enough to think of that, they could have already done so and probably gotten together a simple majority.
How? And why do you suppose that isn't happening already?
Because I'm avoiding the mailing list like an ostrich faced with an
exceptionally delicious pile of sand.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:06 AM, nthmost notifications@github.com wrote:
> if the loudest critics of Proposal No. #12https://github.com/noisebridge/cabal/issues/12had been upset enough to think of that, they could have already done so and
> probably gotten together a simple majority.
>
> How? And why do you suppose that isn't happening already?
>
> ##
>
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/noisebridge/cabal/issues/18#issuecomment-38950149
> .
Kevin is looking into removing the board. I'm not sure if he's going to try for a 50% majority vote according to the bylaws (which is odd, since he doesn't really think the bylaws are effective), or through consensus (also odd, because that won't pass), or maybe he's just going to barricade the space and physically bar us from future meetings (possible but unlikely).
He'll prolly go the 50% route because it's the most convenient. I'm sure he'll bring it up at the next meeting.
-1
You're going to lose Mitch over this.
Also, you haven't convinced most of the community that a change in decision-making structure will help solve any of The Problems.
Here's the initial draft. I decided to just cut it down to the 2/3-voting/consensus issue because that seemed to be the most controversial one, and cut out the other things in the proposal that we are rolling back.
https://github.com/noisebridge/cabal/blob/proposal/consensus/voting.md
Basically, members can pass policy by 2/3 vote instead of consensus. Absent members can vote by emailing the secretary. When member-voted decisions and board-voted decisions conflict, the members decisions overrides.