i think there's a point in which a consensus process is hindered by the number of people participating in it. consensus is good for a small number of people (like 10-15) or a few groups of like-minded individuals concerning the issue at hand who as a group can cast a single vote into consensus. unfortunately as it grows it becomes easier for a minority with sometimes little to no reasonable reasons to block and subvert the entire process. sometimes a plan of action that everyone eventually agrees on because the previous plan was opposed by a few isn't necessarily the best plan of action that would benefit everyone as whole.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Tomm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tomm.fire@gmail.com">tomm.fire@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div class="im">
On 2/27/2010 1:05 PM, Zedd Epstein wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">There
was only one person that blocked. She is not willing to change her
position for the good of the organization as a whole, and our version
of consensus doesn't allow us to just run her over. Therefore the only
recourse we have is to find someone else that we can all agree on. <br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I don't think that requiring unanimous consent is a good thing for
Noisebridge. Not that I know what Noisebridge is, really, or even know
the people involved, but I do know that if there are more than a
handful of people, unanimous consent doesn't have a good track record
in functional organizations. <br>
<br>
"Many historians hold that a major cause of the Commonwealth's downfall
was the principle of <i>liberum veto"</i><br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto</a><br>
<br>
But no need to look that far back for examples: just look at Jim
Bunning's recent "accomplishment" in the US Senate. For more problems,
look here:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Criticisms" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Criticisms</a><br>
<br>
I support the tyranny of the majority for most decisions, and 2/3 vote
for important decisions (like ED votes). It works, and I believe it's
what almost all organizations use [citation needed].<br>
<br>
Tom<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Vlad
Spears <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:spears@2secondfuse.com" target="_blank">spears@2secondfuse.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Was
acceptance of attendance by remote means brought up in the<br>
meeting? If so, it seems that should have ended the objection to<br>
Mitch as Executive Director. At that point, why was the block<br>
retained by whoever blocked?<br>
<br>
It would be great if someone who actually blocked Mitch could speak up<br>
on this list.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Vlad<br>
</font>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
On Feb 27, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Jeffrey Malone wrote:<br>
<br>
>> From my recollection, there have been only two board meetings
in the<br>
> past 12 months. Maybe three.<br>
> One week's notice is required to hold one, and I believe that is
the<br>
> standard advanced warning.<br>
><br>
> Attendance is perfectly acceptable via phone, or other electronic<br>
> means (as explicitly stated in our bylaws).<br>
><br>
> Jeffrey<br>
><br>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:40 AM, dmolnar <<a href="mailto:dmolnar@gmail.com" target="_blank">dmolnar@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>> How many BOD meetings do we have?<br>
>> Are they frequent enough that it would be difficult to schedule<br>
>> attending in<br>
>> advance?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ________________________________<br>
>> From: Ever Falling <<a href="mailto:everfalling@gmail.com" target="_blank">everfalling@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 11:33 AM<br>
>> To: Vlad Spears <<a href="mailto:spears@2secondfuse.com" target="_blank">spears@2secondfuse.com</a>><br>
>> Cc: Noisebridge Discussion List <<a href="mailto:noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive
Director<br>
>><br>
>> IIRC there was only one point made for why Mitch wouldn't be
the /<br>
>> best/<br>
>> choice (not that he wouldn't, for this one point, otherwise be
a<br>
>> good ED)<br>
>> for ED and that's the fact that he travels a lot and wouldn't
be<br>
>> able to<br>
>> attend the required BOD meetings all the time. Christie, who
made<br>
>> the point,<br>
>> suggested Micholi (sp?) as he's at the space more often.<br>
>><br>
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Vlad Spears<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:spears@2secondfuse.com" target="_blank">spears@2secondfuse.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Feb 27, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Ani Niow wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> According to our bylaws<br>
>>> (<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_V_OFFICERS" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_V_OFFICERS</a>),
the<br>
>>> ED's only<br>
>>> responsibilities to preside over all board meetings and
submit a<br>
>>> financial<br>
>>> report 120 days after the end of the fiscal year.
Occasionally as<br>
>>> an officer<br>
>>> the ED may be asked to help or sign paperwork such as
getting a<br>
>>> seller's<br>
>>> permit (which we've been trying to get for months but
given the<br>
>>> unclear<br>
>>> status of if we have actually *had* an ED since October it
has not<br>
>>> happened<br>
>>> yet). Other than that it's generally being an otherwise
awesome<br>
>>> contributor<br>
>>> to Noisebridge.<br>
>>> What the arguing is about is that some people feel that
the ED<br>
>>> should have<br>
>>> more responsibility, such as being an advocate for
Noisebridge in<br>
>>> their<br>
>>> travels and being a representative of sorts. I disagree
with this<br>
>>> view given<br>
>>> we are a collective without anyone being in a hierarchy,
we should<br>
>>> all be<br>
>>> doing this job as members and contributors.<br>
>>><br>
>>> So is this why Mitch was blocked as Executive Director?
These are<br>
>>> two<br>
>>> different issues.<br>
>>> Issue 1) We need an Executive Director now.<br>
>>> Issue 2) Later, after much discussion, let's affirm or
redefine<br>
>>> exactly<br>
>>> what the Executive Director's role is. If the person
currently in<br>
>>> the role<br>
>>> at a point of redefinition cannot fulfill it, they can
step down<br>
>>> and a new<br>
>>> Executive Director can be sought.<br>
>>> I'd like to point out while we are all advocates and<br>
>>> representatives of<br>
>>> Noisebridge in the wider world, it would be poor planning
not to<br>
>>> account for<br>
>>> the fact our internal valuations do not match the wider
world's<br>
>>> perceptions.<br>
>>> Noisebridge members generally know that "Executive
Director" does<br>
>>> not mean<br>
>>> "in charge" and is not a position of power. The outside
world<br>
>>> does not know<br>
>>> this, and assumes the inverse. It seems particularly
important,<br>
>>> then, to<br>
>>> have an Executive Director who is not just generally
awesome as a<br>
>>> Noisebridge contributor, but can explain this to the
outside world<br>
>>> while not<br>
>>> being prone to self-aggrandizement or assumption of power
they do<br>
>>> not<br>
>>> actually wield. This fits Mitch like a glove.<br>
>>> Again, who blocked Mitch and why?<br>
>>> Vlad<br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Trying to fix or change something, only guarantees and
perpetuates<br>
>> its<br>
>> existence.<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
>> <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<pre><fieldset></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net" target="_blank">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Trying to fix or change something, only guarantees and perpetuates its existence.<br>