[sudo-discuss] {consensus?} IRC ownership

[Eddan Katz]

I have no interest in blocking any proposal.
It does of course raise issues of voting and participation if consensus unanimity is the 8 people at Sudo Room last night who could stay late for a 2-hour meeting. But I'm sure we'll get to that with the revisiting membership discussions that was brought up in another thread.

I was asking about what that was about because it was unclear from the minutes. Apparently, there's some back story that's all totally innocent and for the good of sudo room. i'm sure there is - but how can I know that? i think it's dangerous precedent to set that the modus operandi of Sudo Room meeting minutes is to include as little as possible to the public mailing list for reasons of liability concerns of the nominated Board members. I actually did go to the meeting physically and was one of about 15-20 of us that came in and out throughout the night. I had no idea that I did not stick around long enough (because it was past when I promised to be home) to participate in a consensus vote on a newly introduced agenda item regarding sole foundership of one of our main communication platforms. 

There is nothing about Marc in particular other than the appearance of conflict of interest, which is what Marc should ultimately be worrying about. I'm not trying to pick on him, it just seems that Marc finds himself in those situations when we're figuring out the kinks involving our checks and balances.

How and when did our practices become so secretive and exclusive in our communications? Was it when the Board discussion finally came up? If so, I think it should be a problem addressed by the community rather than swept under the rug until everything gets finalized in Sacramento.


On Nov 7, 2013, at 12:40 PM, Jenny Ryan <tunabananas at gmail.com> wrote:

> An IRC channel may have up to 4 founders, and as many ops as desired. We discussed this for awhile at the meeting, and unanimously agreed to give Marc foundership, at which point he can distribute op / foundership status to another trusted member, who can then grant op/foundership status in turn.
> 
> Hopefully we can consense on this this week and have a final decision by the next meeting. It's good you bring this up on the mailing list now, as I was just about to do it. You're free to block this proposal and we can then discuss an alternative at the next meeting.
> 
> Jenny
> http://jennyryan.net
> http://thepyre.org
> http://thevirtualcampfire.org
> http://technomadic.tumblr.com
> 
> `~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
> "Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories."
> -Laurie Anderson
> 
> "Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."
>  -Hannah Arendt
> 
> "To define is to kill. To suggest is to create."
> -Stéphane Mallarmé
> ~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Eddan Katz <eddan at sudoroom.tv> wrote:
> Sorry I had to leave the meeting early - I missed some of the things that came up after I left. Just noticed in the minutes the IRC owner announcement. I'm not on IRC much so I haven't followed the moderation control developments since they'd been discussed earlier on. I don't remember what we agreed on, but I do remember there being preference for a distributed moderation solution.
> 
> - Can someone explain to me what it means that Marc should be 'the sole founder of the IRC channel'? 
> 
>> 4.5 extra bizness consensus motion: marc juul should be the sole founder of our irc channel. 8 unanimous votes yes. 0 abstaining or voting nay. 5. After- Meeting Teamups 
> 
> Does this role also include final veto decision-making power over bans and blocks on IRC? 
> Just trying to figure out what situations regarding the Board might pose conflict of interest issues before they come up rather than after.
> 
> 
> sent from eddan.com
> 
> On Nov 6, 2013, at 11:15 PM, Max Klein <isalix at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> If you remember after last week's meeting we were anxious because we were $800 behind on rent. Now we have $5500 and are officially a Public Benefit Nonprofit Corporation. 
>> Let us take a moment to meditate on this week and the efforts of our members.
>> 
>> Minutes: https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013-11-06
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20131107/e0379c76/attachment.html>