Burn the Hub Proposal

Well, since the standardized proposal mirrors this NE proposal, we were planning on withdrawing ours.

My concerns were heard with ensuring simplification of web interface on the web's proposal. Some NE members still might feel strongly about killing the hub or for it to not be represented on the PA website. If so, that amendment will come. But! I'll withdraw Burn the Hub and say the Standardized Proposal officially has the support of NE. I just want to see this on the agenda for next spokes, so if NAC support is needed, it is officially announced. (I'll allow sometime for this to be reviewed before deleting the entire post).

Just let things live on for posterity, no need to delete at the moment.

Also for clarity around the proposed method we're discussing here (how to submit proposals via Loomio), your individual proposal may be the same exact wording as the NAC proposal, but could possibly die at the Spokescouncil at that time (as voted on by your NAC at that time), but live on here until it's been developed further, wherein you could either re-propose to your NAC with the community input and appends or take it to the NAC Coordinator to be brought through Infrastructure as a proposal to the Spokes.

If you are open to friendly amendment @sam102 @shuajoshua then my sense is that the new information could be folded into this proposal. I will include this in the proposals that I send out to folks if that is agreeable. Just as an aside, is there a more accurate name that I could use for this proposal to represent its intent when emailing it out?

The reason I say that is because we have been asking proposals to be approved by NACs. Unless I am mistaken Jon's proposal did not go through his NAC. However if the ideas behind it does get approved by a NAC as a friendly amendment, it could be incorporated into your proposal and voted on by the spokescouncil. Does that make sense?

I did not bring it through the NAC yet, but we have the benefit of bringing proposals to the spokescouncil as Infrastructure, so I was going to bring it there first (which we all pretty much discussed already, but it will need to be formalized).

That has been the key "kick start" to previous spokescouncils since folks weren't necessarily ready to bring their own.

Again, this proposal has been withdrawn for sake of redundancy. NE NAC fully supports and approves the Standardized Proposal from web subcommittee, whether it is needed or not to help get them on the agenda (possible future amendments to come... although the two members in NE, most interested and concerned about the execution, plan on working within the web subcommittee, and figure these proposals are just to get everyone on the same page. Truly shaping the finer details come from putting in the work... so probably no amendment..?). And this, because you know what?! ... https://youtu.be/uWd6XgBVIcg

x-posting cuz relevant

I don't see the need to regulate what NACS use for internal discussion, but for inter-NAC and spokes discussion I agree.

I think it's more to suggest best known platforms in that sense. NACs by definition can use whatever they want since they make their own decisions, but that black box has to plugin to the network to have that information start moving. So all that has been proposed from my understanding was standardizing on that, which it seems like everyone agrees about.

Feeling the need to mention that I think tinkering with proposals past the 3-week-out date is, by my estimation, too much info for our members not on Loomio to follow via ongoing emails and Loomio forwards from me (as point-person). For example, 3 of our 5 members were at the July Spokescouncil and are of the understanding that proposals will be cut off 3 weeks from the next Spokescouncil. I believe at around 3 weeks out from this Aug Spokes we had 1 or 2 proposals. Since then it has grown to 4, so I have subsequently forwarded both the Loomio discussions and the Mail Chimp email summarizing the proposals. Now we have another change in the works (is Burn the Hub being removed or amended? I'm still unsure), and I don't how to convey the information leading up to that change other than forwarding this Loomio discussion and hoping members read thru and understand it. I am worried about overwhelming our members who are working 2-3 jobs and can't keep up. To be honest, I have a hard time keeping up and I currently don't even work. It's a lot. I am afraid of burnout. Is there any teeth to the notion that we will have official proposals 3 weeks out to give us time to do the learning, thinking, meeting, discussing, and voting? That way NACs can have 1 meeting rather than examining them in pieces for weeks leading up to the Spokes and having to vote multiple times leading right up to the Spokescouncil? Is there any teeth to the notion that official proposals not brought forth by the cutoff will simply be brought forth for the subsequent Spokescouncil (like Sept)?