<div dir="ltr">Moving to a more democratic system would be untested for Noisebridge, but at the same time it works well for many non-profit organizations. What isn't hypothetical are the problems that consensus brings about, or rather, fails to solve. We've had it for five years and what's it has delivered is a dwindling membership, the remainder of which has voted for a board that has stated they won't be merely symbolic like previous boards have been.<br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Naomi Most <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pnaomi@gmail.com" target="_blank">pnaomi@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I am so, so with you on the "as light as possible" idea.<br>
<br>
I'm not anti-change. But I would prefer to change towards things in<br>
an incremental manner, watching to see what the effects of any one<br>
change have on the community before pushing out a bunch of other ones.<br>
<br>
Right now, the item on the board's docket that is the least well<br>
supported by convincing arguments, IMHO, is the concept of moving to a<br>
"democratic" vote at meetings.<br>
<br>
Consensus is a construct that certainly struggles to accommodate all<br>
of the bullshit we're trying to pipeline into it. I don't think the<br>
correct response is to increase the throughput of the pipeline. We<br>
should be seeking to eliminate (or greatly reduce) the bullshit.<br>
<br>
Municipal planners know it all too well that whenever you increase the<br>
throughput of a highway, you get increased traffic to match...<br>
<br>
--Naomi<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:55 PM, rachel lyra hospodar<br>
<div><div><<a href="mailto:rachelyra@gmail.com" target="_blank">rachelyra@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Thanks for this thoughtful answer Naomi.<br>
><br>
> Perhaps folks will continue playing with ways to scale the meeting which<br>
> address these issues.<br>
><br>
> In other circumstances, I have seen 'scaling' related to 'more structure'<br>
> in a pretty inevitable way, but still the most successful scaling attempts<br>
> were the lightest-handed, adding the minimum possible addition, making the<br>
> minimum viable changes.<br>
><br>
> So my suggestions and input to that conversation would be around meeting<br>
> structures that I have seen used, and help kicking around ideas on how to<br>
> implement them (or other structures) here at noisebridge.<br>
><br>
> I'd be open to that discussion in person, sometime in April. I'm available<br>
> most Mondays and Tuesdays in that month if anyone wants to put something<br>
> together to which I could be invited to input or attend or even help<br>
> organize I'd be thrilled.<br>
><br>
> I recognize that many people have worked on this issue, and I both respect<br>
> their attempts and don't have any particular solution in mind. But I do have<br>
> lots of experience at organizing with humans with many varying degrees of<br>
> success and I'd be happy to share my learnings in the hopes of helping us<br>
> all be in a situation where we learn more together about how to run our<br>
> learning-place.<br>
><br>
> Meta, dude.<br>
><br>
> R.<br>
><br>
> On Mar 26, 2014 11:56 AM, "Naomi Most" <<a href="mailto:pnaomi@gmail.com" target="_blank">pnaomi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Rachel asked:<br>
>><br>
>> > Is there some problem with using it as a venue for coming together to<br>
>> > build<br>
>> > comradery, discuss our issues, and try to consent to each other's ideas?<br>
>><br>
>> Yeah, there's a bit of a problem... *sigh*<br>
>><br>
>> (TL;DR -- Drama, retrofitted into a consensus policy process, easily<br>
>> breaks the meetings! But I believe the board is working on a good<br>
>> solution, and it involves the Community Working Group.)<br>
>><br>
>> What you've enumerated are all good ways-of-being rooted in real<br>
>> experiences. But the latest version of "the Noisebridge experience"<br>
>> turns these old ways into obsolete technology.<br>
>><br>
>> Here's the reality:<br>
>><br>
>> Because so many social issues have been, by convention, pushed to<br>
>> consensus discussion -- the group has to pick and choose which issues<br>
>> it wants to work on. That means that there's no guarantee that an<br>
>> issue you care about comes up for consensus at the meeting you made<br>
>> time in your schedule.<br>
>><br>
>> Further complicating things: we have a convention about an issue being<br>
>> "up for discussion" for a week, with the following week being the<br>
>> first time an issue CAN be consensed upon.<br>
>><br>
>> There's no guarantee of either of the above things ("up for<br>
>> discussion" or "up for consensus") occurring on any given week or even<br>
>> in succession. Why? Because SO DAMN MANY issues at noisebridge have<br>
>> been pushed to the general meeting, that the moderator generally has<br>
>> to take a "straw poll of interest" just to whittle the number of<br>
>> consensus items down to a reasonable number that we can discuss (say,<br>
>> 4 -- and I think that's too many!).<br>
>><br>
>> So, the affected / interested parties on an issue have no way to plan<br>
>> around their involvement in a thing, other than to come back to the<br>
>> meeting Every Single Week.<br>
>><br>
>> Personally speaking, I will *DIE* if I go to a Noisebridge meeting<br>
>> every night. I mean I will mentally break down and probably start<br>
>> crying uncontrollably. Not because NB is such a bad place. But<br>
>> because I am a single mom (for those of you just tuning in) and I only<br>
>> have 3 nights a week of free time to work with to destress from my two<br>
>> jobs (the kid and the job).<br>
>><br>
>> Systemically speaking, this "structure" has had devastating<br>
>> consequences. For example, social issues that really should have been<br>
>> solved in other ways (which don't exist at Noisebridge -- yet!) have<br>
>> been able to wash out more practical and mundane proposals.<br>
>><br>
>> Sometimes social issues push aside other social issues, which -- when<br>
>> you put it to a straw poll -- results in a classist and racist<br>
>> prioritization of issues.<br>
>><br>
>> Please see the whole "Lee Sonko" saga (documented in the mailing list)<br>
>> for how this process can go Very Wrong.<br>
>><br>
>> And I think the unsung subplot-problem in the Lee Sonko case was that<br>
>> there were several very pressing social issues that didn't come up for<br>
>> discussion, involving what turned out to be very problematic<br>
>> individuals, despite an advocate's dutifully putting the issue up for<br>
>> straw-poll-to-discuss for many weeks, BECAUSE it was (apparently) so<br>
>> urgent that we ban Lee Sonko.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Final note: I'm not sure "every week at the same time and place"<br>
>> qualifies as "maximum accommodation" -- the case of Lee Sonko<br>
>> providing a stark example to the contrary.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I know that discussion is what the weekly NB meeting was designed for.<br>
>> But the engineers didn't plan to have to scale.<br>
>><br>
>> --Naomi<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:30 PM, rachel lyra hospodar<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:rachelyra@gmail.com" target="_blank">rachelyra@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > I encourage everyone to get together in person whenever they like, as<br>
>> > often<br>
>> > as possible.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > We have this regular Tuesday meeting. It serves many functions. One of<br>
>> > which<br>
>> > is this in-person thing which I think is a great idea. Its recurring<br>
>> > weekly<br>
>> > nature is designed for maximum accommodation of varying scheduling needs<br>
>> > of<br>
>> > peoples lives.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Is there some problem with using it as a venue for coming together to<br>
>> > build<br>
>> > comradery, discuss our issues, and try to consent to each other's ideas?<br>
>> ><br>
>> > That's what it was designed for.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > R.<br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Naomi Theora Most<br>
>> <a href="mailto:naomi@nthmost.com" target="_blank">naomi@nthmost.com</a><br>
>> <a href="tel:%2B1-415-728-7490" value="+14157287490" target="_blank">+1-415-728-7490</a><br>
>><br>
>> skype: nthmost<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://twitter.com/nthmost" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/nthmost</a><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>
Naomi Theora Most<br>
<a href="mailto:naomi@nthmost.com" target="_blank">naomi@nthmost.com</a><br>
<a href="tel:%2B1-415-728-7490" value="+14157287490" target="_blank">+1-415-728-7490</a><br>
<br>
skype: nthmost<br>
<br>
<a href="http://twitter.com/nthmost" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/nthmost</a><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></div></div>