Current Consensus Items

This is a page for hosting consensus items currently under debate, with their formal wording.

You might be looking for

• the Draft Consensus Items page, instead? If your consensus item still drafty, in need of much revision, and not something that you think people already can more or less agree with.
• Consensus Items History is the public record of consensus items that have been decided on in the past. Please move the records from the "Current" page to the "History" page once they've been approved/blocked.

Date First Discussed XX Month, Year	Proposed By User	Informal Title	Summary	Author of this Record User
August 1, 2023	proposed by Mark	Updating & clarifying Membership process language.	Currently, there is an 8 week process to become a full Member, (Consensed on Feb 8th 2022), with 4 weeks dedicated to reviewing their application for concerns/blocks. But also, we Consensed in 2018 on a 2 week post-acceptance "oh shit" period in case a Member is late to block for whatever reason. We need to decide if this is still necessary since the new process allots so much consideration time and update the language accordingly so that it is clear that it overrides the old "oh shit" process, if it indeed does. We also want to clarify that big M ("full") Members are the only ones who can sponsor both Associate Memberships as well as big M Memberships. Proposal: 1. Amend the Feb 2022 Membership process Consensus item to say "oh shit" period is no longer necessary, and 2. Amend the Membership application form and associated documentation to state clearly that all sponsors must be Full Members in good standing. 3. Require that during active application status, it be noted in each weekly meeting notes during review the prospective Member and their sponsor.	Author of this record: Mark
August 29, 2023	proposed by Mark	Renewing May 23rd Consensus Item	Updating blocking requirement for big C consensus items from 1 to 2 people. Currently in order to block a big C consensus Item, we need only 1 member to block. Would like to update this number to 2 members. Perhaps the 1 member to block made sense when the community was tiny. It doesn't make sense anymore in our much larger community. If you cant convince anyone else to block with you, then maybe you just have bad ideas. The community should not have to make changes only folks with bad ideas think are good. This change would be provisional for 3 months. Also would only apply for member proposed consensus items, non-member proposed consensus items would still be block able by a single member. Also only 1 member would be required to block new membership. Also if any one member would like to block, but cannot because they are alone, they can request a 1 week hold to defer decision for an additional 3rd week. Finally being able to articulate reasons for blocking is required. Good faith blocking is the only acceptable kind of blocking. If no 'legitimate' reasons for blocking can be supplied then they community can override the block. Obviously this is subjective. However blocking just 'because' is not considered viable reason to block and wont be honored.	Author of this record: Mark
Date First Discussed	Proposed By	Informal Title	Summary	Author of this Record