[dms-discuss] Comments on Key Committee and digital access
braden at davismakerspace.org
Tue Oct 15 11:02:06 PDT 2013
Hi Tim and all,
Just to pick out one thing I wanted to ask about:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:21:06AM -0700, Tim Feldman wrote:
> We do have bylaws about eligibility for voting, so one possible decision method
> would be for all eligible voters to vote on granting digital access to a
> particular applicant. I don't think that would be responsible access, and I
> doubt that we could get the necessary consensus. So I don't favor that "general
> vote" method.
Could you explain more about why you do not think it would be responsible access, and why you do not think we could get the necessary consensus?
Frankly, simply in terms of the process of giving a key (and independent of the responsibilities of having one), I rather like the idea of treating it like any other resolution seeking consensus. In other words, somewhat similar to what we did with Lucian, but with two very important additions:
- Like any decision, it should be specifically announced prior to the meeting as an item for seeking consensus, as stated in our bylaws about matters requiring giving notice.
- Unlike other decisions, once we officially seek the consensus of the group, the keyholder in question should not be present, due to the obvious social pressures involved with possibly rejecting someone to their face, etc. (Or, perhaps more generally, we could further say any "interested party" may not be present for that particular taking of consensus for that particular decision.)
In terms of process (vs the specifics of key-holder requirements and responsibilities), I'm curious if and how others would see the above as a tenible or untenible method.
More information about the Discuss