[57north-discuss] Cheers and requests for comments
mail at edwardwatson.co.uk
Wed Mar 13 11:56:02 GMT 2019
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 10:02, Iain R. Learmonth <irl at fsfe.org> wrote:
> As the vortex has not been regularly rotated, I would like to restart
> the rotation on the 2nd April. Any items that have not been claimed by
> the 2nd April will be thrown out *regardless* of when they were placed
> into the vortex.
Good to restart this but we may need to check the boxes are actually
full of trash - some items might be useful. From what I recall, the
rotation was done to make sure at least one box was empty - otherwise
it was left as a bits-box.
>On 10/03/2019 12:34, Edward Watson wrote:
> > A wiki page now exists for listing these items and I hereby
> > volunteer to transport items via van to waste at regular intervals.
> Thanks for volunteering, we should document this on the wiki so that if
> it is not happening we know who to ask. (Not so we can harass you to do
> it, but so we can be aware that someone else needs to do it if you
> can't/won't do it for whatever reason).
My volunteering has been added to the Trashing page.
> > It
> > was tentatively suggested that some time during the last Tuesday of the
> > month should be devoted to tidying and sorting. I have gone on to add
> > that maybe that day's Tuesday announce emails should call attention to
> > the 'large item' and 'trashing pages' for the membership to check and
> > maybe claim.
> I'm not convinced this can/should be done on an open night, but I'm
> willing to give it a go. We need a wiki page with a checklist on things
> that need to be done so they can be distributed among members.
This is just a once-a-month opportunity to tidy and coordinate trashing
as a group. Probably needs to be 6-7 if disrupting members is a concern.
> > We have evolved most of our current space practices by collecting
> > comments until objections cease. Please voice your opinions to the above
> > to help us dial it in right.
> This is really not a great decision making methodology. ):
> If it's acceptable to other members though then, again, I'll go along
> with it.
This is more a way to generate good practise, not a complete decision
making methodology in itself. We have other things for that.
More information about the 57north-discuss