<div dir="ltr">To clarify, the questions I had were intended for the thread at large, not specifically at Danny. I'd like to hear other people's replies on this thread.<div><br></div><div>Danny, I'll reply to you off-list (we've probably been dominating this thread. My emails have been at least).</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Danny O'Brien <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:danny@spesh.com" target="_blank">danny@spesh.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Al Sweigart <<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com">asweigart@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> DANNY, I AM BEING UPFRONT AND DIRECT WITH YOU. I'm not feigning ignorance or<br>
> whatever bad faith stance you're implying I have: I do "kinda-sorta" have an<br>
> idea what people's arguments for and against are. But I don't *know* what<br>
> people exactly think about replacing consensus with majority voting. I<br>
> assumed Leif was alright with overnight sleepers a week back, and he said I<br>
> was dead wrong about that. I can guess he's in strongly in favor of<br>
> consensus exactly as it is currently, but at this point I want to avoid<br>
> assuming and would rather people state their views on this; THEN I have<br>
> something to work with.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>I know! It's just a little hard to believe![1] We're in a vim and<br>
emacs battle here, and I admit that, as a de facto representative of<br>
an entire (and somewhat obscure) body of thought, it can be hard to<br>
convey that. It's also okay -- I spend my day job (which I will VERY<br>
SHORTLY RETURN TO, people reading this at work!) explaining why the<br>
perfectly reasonable and commonplace institution of copyright has<br>
flaws, why filtering obscene content is problematic, why patents don't<br>
improve innovation, and why anonymity is a good thing. I'm not unused<br>
to explaining ideas that half the world thinks are insane, and the<br>
other half view as uncontroversial truths.<br>
<br>
[1] Note that -- and I was perhaps not as clear as I should have been<br>
-- I was saying that while I am frustrated enough to think you are<br>
acting in bad faith, assuming so would be to falling victim to the<br>
same bad behavior as I am accusing you of. So I won't do that.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Otherwise, I'm fishing in the dark, I'm going to miss people, and have to<br>
> deal with other people accusing me of working on bad faith by skipping over<br>
> them or by making straw man arguments because I'm not addressing the reasons<br>
> they actually have.<br>
><br>
> Once again, I completely welcome and would appreciate people who are in<br>
> favor of consensus to make their viewpoints known. Discussing this, on the<br>
> list and in person, is how we can resolve things. Are you in favor of<br>
> consensus? Are you in favor of replacing consensus with majority vote?<br>
> Simple or clear majority? If not majority vote, are there changes to<br>
> consensus you're more agreeable with?<br>
<br>
</div>So, as a quick exercise, maybe you could re-read my previous messages,<br>
and extrapolate from those what I think? You've been doing pretty good<br>
at that,beyond the assumption that I and Kevin decided to block you<br>
(which we didn't) based on us wanting to snatch power away from<br>
everyone else.<br>
<br>
And as I said, I'd like to give some recorded talks about this at<br>
Noisebridge. It's a format that I like, it means that I don't have to<br>
repeat myself so many times, we can draw in input from others, and<br>
even if we switch to majorities, it'll be a useful historical record.<br>
Woohoo Federalist papers!<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
><br>
> (Kevin, I still owe you that off-line email, but I think I can make it to<br>
> the space this evening after all.)<br>
><br>
> -Al<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Danny O'Brien <<a href="mailto:danny@spesh.com">danny@spesh.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Al Sweigart <<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com">asweigart@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > Danny, when I ran for board I brought up modifying/replacing our<br>
>> > consensus<br>
>> > process, but no one else chimed in on that topic:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-January/020091.html" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-January/020091.html</a><br>
>> > (I didn't follow up on that either in the following months; other NB<br>
>> > stuff<br>
>> > came up.) And the issue of replacing consensus with majority voting<br>
>> > hasn't<br>
>> > come up very often after that (I've done enough trawling through the<br>
>> > mailing<br>
>> > list archive for today.)<br>
>> ><br>
>> > There was a huge thread on consensus before that in 2009, which I hadn't<br>
>> > commented on (it was before I followed the mailing list much):<br>
>> ><br>
>> > <a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2009-October/008547.html" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2009-October/008547.html</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> > But this is all ancient history on Noisebridge's timeline. Almost no one<br>
>> > on<br>
>> > those threads hacks at the space anymore.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Here's an idea: Instead of me jumping through hoops to find people who<br>
>> > disagree with making changes at Noisebridge, why don't those people pay<br>
>> > attention to the mailing list, meeting notes, or Consensus Items wiki<br>
>> > page<br>
>> > and then make their own views known on the list or at a meeting?<br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>> You're asking for a fairly major and fundamental change; part of<br>
>> getting that to work is to positively engage with everyone. Whatever<br>
>> system you're in, if you're pushing for change, it falls on you to try<br>
>> and engage with others. Sorry!<br>
>><br>
>> Maybe I have been soaked in discussion of the pros and cons of<br>
>> consensus for too long, but I do sort of think that you actually know<br>
>> a lot of these arguments, but you're adopting a kind of rhetorical<br>
>> stance of ignorance to try and bait people to debate you within your<br>
>> own framing. To say that is really to adopt the same stance as I'm<br>
>> criticising, which is to imply bad faith on your opponents.<br>
>><br>
>> Given that you're somewhat pulling me back into doing Noisebridgian<br>
>> stuff (uhh thanks i guess), I am tempted to do a bunch of talks on<br>
>> Noisebridge process and thinking. At the very least, it would be fun<br>
>> to go over the lessons of the last few years and codify them, and I<br>
>> think it will help disabuse ideas like consensus is a powergrab by<br>
>> members...<br>
>><br>
>> d.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> > So far, I have Kevin as being against replacing consensus (side note:<br>
>> > Kevin,<br>
>> > I'll follow up on our off-list emails, I think a lot of this is a<br>
>> > misunderstanding that I can clarify my aims) and you down as<br>
>> > "christ-I-don't-know-maybe". I'll work with Kevin on this, but I'm not a<br>
>> > mind reader. The best I can do is go on the list and at the meetings and<br>
>> > ask, "Who has a problem with this and what are those problems?"<br>
>> ><br>
>> > -Al<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Danny O'Brien <<a href="mailto:danny@spesh.com">danny@spesh.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Al Sweigart <<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com">asweigart@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >> wrote:<br>
>> >> > Every other time I've proposed this? I've never proposed this before,<br>
>> >> > Danny.<br>
>> >> > And checking the Consensus Items History wiki page which goes back<br>
>> >> > three<br>
>> >> > years, no one else has either.<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> You got me! I sort of meant more "proposed" in the sense of talking a<br>
>> >> lot about how consensus is the death knell of Noisebridge.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> You also stood for the board on the platform that you thought the<br>
>> >> board should do things (as opposed to the default board position,<br>
>> >> which is to cede its power to the meeting's consensus). I have always<br>
>> >> seen you as the main proponent of solutions to Noisebridge that<br>
>> >> involve doing everything the way everyone else does it. i hope that's<br>
>> >> flattering rather than damning.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> > People have been grumbling about consensus for a long time, but no<br>
>> >> > one<br>
>> >> > has<br>
>> >> > ever actually brought up the issue.<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > I did write one email to you and Mitch and couple others like two<br>
>> >> > years<br>
>> >> > ago<br>
>> >> > about this, and you replied that you didn't think getting rid of<br>
>> >> > consensus<br>
>> >> > would solve any of Noisebridge's problem.<br>
>> >> > Actually, I'm still unsure what<br>
>> >> > your position on this is to begin with: Would you yourself block<br>
>> >> > replacing<br>
>> >> > consensus with majority voting?<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Christ, I don't know. Maybe? Like I said earlier, I'd rather<br>
>> >> Noisebridge try some other radical experimental system instead of just<br>
>> >> doing what everybody else does. I'd rather we had some mad condorcet<br>
>> >> voting system tied to liquid democracy with a future's market<br>
>> >> denominated in bitcoins than Robert's Rules of Order. My interest in<br>
>> >> Noisebridge is to hack on interesting things, and that includes its<br>
>> >> operational structure.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> One of the things I like about Noisebridge's current set-up is that it<br>
>> >> attracts all the political dweebs like me and Tom and you and Johny<br>
>> >> Radio, who would otherwise potentially turn it into some sort of of<br>
>> >> high-school debating society, and ties them so much in consensus-based<br>
>> >> knots that they can't get anything rule-based done apart from honk on<br>
>> >> to each other at Meeting -- in theory leaving everyone else to just<br>
>> >> hack, and maintain the place. The *theory* is that this encourages<br>
>> >> everyone else (like to do-acractically do whatever they want, without<br>
>> >> suddenly the political dweebs coming down from on high and going "uhh<br>
>> >> excuse me I don't think you've filled in the lasercutting chit form<br>
>> >> 32ZB! Membership demerit point!"<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I think people like Jim and Maestro would say that our current system<br>
>> >> hasn't really been effective enough at preventing that from happening,<br>
>> >> so I don't know. I don't see your current proposal as fixing *that*<br>
>> >> problem, or even seeing it as a problem, opening up the risk that you<br>
>> >> would end up with the election of the board going to a bunch of<br>
>> >> political dweebs who would also be too asocially dysfunctional to<br>
>> >> *not* put in a bunch of overarching rules, but maybe I'm wrong about<br>
>> >> that. I also note that every time we've set up anything like a power<br>
>> >> structure like the redshirts or the rooster brigade, the creepy people<br>
>> >> that everyone else is freaked by make an absolute beeline for it, and<br>
>> >> I'm a little worried about that too. The intersection of "people who<br>
>> >> like alternative hackerspaces" and "people who think they might be<br>
>> >> quite good at running things" seems me much more full of<br>
>> >> organizational incompetence and creepiness than in other sectors.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Again I guess I would prefer to experiment with something more<br>
>> >> hackerish before putting on our grown-up NGO trousers.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Also, to be consistent with what I told you a million years ago, I see<br>
>> >> fixing consensus as being a distraction from the main challenge, which<br>
>> >> is shifting the present culture from being a dark mildly smelly room<br>
>> >> full of slightly shifty looking unshaven young men reading youtube<br>
>> >> between naps and stealing copper, to a laughing clean space cubicle<br>
>> >> full of people riding robot unicorns showing each other the wonders of<br>
>> >> the 21st century.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> In conclusion, as I said in the meeting, I would not be the last<br>
>> >> holdout on a consensus proposal to remove consensus. That therefore<br>
>> >> makes my opinion, like everyone apart from the voter who shifts a<br>
>> >> majority, rather irrelevant. It's other people you have to convince.<br>
>> >> (And I do mean convince, as opposed to "write them an email saying BUT<br>
>> >> WILL YOU BLOCK" and then bemoaning their intransigence when they say<br>
>> >> yes.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> d.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Danny O'Brien <<a href="mailto:danny@spesh.com">danny@spesh.com</a>><br>
>> >> > wrote:<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Al Sweigart <<a href="mailto:asweigart@gmail.com">asweigart@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >> >> wrote:<br>
>> >> >> > It's in the meeting notes:<br>
>> >> >> > <a href="https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013_12_17" target="_blank">https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013_12_17</a><br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >> > Basically, Danny blocks because other people would block. Kevin<br>
>> >> >> > blocks<br>
>> >> >> > because Noisebridge is a collaborative space and majority voting<br>
>> >> >> > would<br>
>> >> >> > undo<br>
>> >> >> > or impinge on that. I encourage them (or anyone else) to correct<br>
>> >> >> > this<br>
>> >> >> > description, but it's what I came away from the meeting with.<br>
>> >> >> > (And,<br>
>> >> >> > of<br>
>> >> >> > course, if Danny and Kevin don't have time to reply to the list,<br>
>> >> >> > that<br>
>> >> >> > doesn't mean they implicitly agree with my description.)<br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> Al, I didn't block. It's the first week. You can't block then.<br>
>> >> >> You're<br>
>> >> >> just supposed to mull things around a bit, and chew a hay stalk<br>
>> >> >> while<br>
>> >> >> you do so. I am, however, allowed to express my opinion that this<br>
>> >> >> would not go anywhere. I may be wrong.<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> > The "other people who would block" I can only take a guess at, and<br>
>> >> >> > half<br>
>> >> >> > of<br>
>> >> >> > them aren't even living in SF anymore. If I try to read people's<br>
>> >> >> > minds<br>
>> >> >> > about<br>
>> >> >> > this issue I'm going to fail; I'd rather have them chime in on the<br>
>> >> >> > mailing<br>
>> >> >> > list or show up at a meeting if they have strong feelings about<br>
>> >> >> > this.<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> Maybe a good way of finding out people's feelings is by going<br>
>> >> >> through<br>
>> >> >> the mailing list and reading people's replies every other time<br>
>> >> >> you've<br>
>> >> >> proposed this?<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> d.<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >> > -Al<br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Rubin Abdi <<a href="mailto:rubin@starset.net">rubin@starset.net</a>><br>
>> >> >> > wrote:<br>
>> >> >> >><br>
>> >> >> >> Al Sweigart wrote, On 2013-12-18 18:44:<br>
>> >> >> >> > The most common tactic in Noisebridge politics is to get people<br>
>> >> >> >> > to<br>
>> >> >> >> > stop<br>
>> >> >> >> > speaking up about issues.<br>
>> >> >> >><br>
>> >> >> >> Then that sounds like an entirely different issue that needs<br>
>> >> >> >> attention.<br>
>> >> >> >> Don't cut off the finger when all that is needed is a bandage.<br>
>> >> >> >><br>
>> >> >> >> If I were you I would call out those members.<br>
>> >> >> >><br>
>> >> >> >> --<br>
>> >> >> >> Rubin<br>
>> >> >> >> <a href="mailto:rubin@starset.net">rubin@starset.net</a><br>
>> >> >> >><br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >> ><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>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>