<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
��� There's also the argument that "the proposal will <br>
disturb my interests and activities" idea. I believe <br>
this is valid to the point that "the proposal" negatively <br>
affects the abilities of the objector(s) to do what <br>
they've been doing. <br>
��� In that view, objectors should be able to articulate <br>
how their activities (== interests) may be affected. <br>
If objectors cannot, their objections should be <br>
considered invalid. I.e. one can't just object on the <br>
basis of general, ideological disapproval. Because <br>
there are differing ideologies, any ideology should <br>
be accepted but not supported. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/14/2014 12:36 PM, Mitch Altman
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:BAY172-W33EA272ADE637D8B00456EB8AD0@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">Warning: positive rant about consensus process
follows:<br>
<br>
<br>
tl;dr -- blocking is *not* OK.�� Disagreeing *requires* helping
everyone in the discussion to come up with a proposal everyone
is happy enough with.��<br>
<br>
The one exception is in accepting a new Member at Noisebridge
(where any Member can block for any reason, even if they can't
articulate why). <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Long version:<br>
<br>
As discussed in the really good discussion-group at the BACH
Unconference, for consensus process to function, it is never OK
for someone to merely block.��Blocking means: "If this proposal
is approved as-is, I cannot, in good conscience, continue to be
a member of this organization."��That is a very strong stance to
take.��<br>
<br>
If a consensus discussion is facilitated well, it should never
come to this -- a call for consensus should not happen if there
are people in disagreement.��The facilitator can detect that
there is disagreement, and��encourage further
discussion.��Alternatively,��the facilitator can ask the group
if the discussion should be continued off-line from the meeting,
and postpone consensus on the proposal till a future
meeting.��Or ask if the proposal should be dropped altogether. <br>
<br>
If someone disagrees during a consensus discussion, it is never
OK to simply say, "I disagree."��To state a disagreement during
consensus discussion, the person disagreeing is *obliged* to
state how the proposal can be changed to make it OK enough for
them *and* for everyone else to be happy enough to proceed. <br>
<br>
The one exception to this is in accepting a new Member at
Noisebridge:��any current Member (in good standing) can block
acceptance of a potential new Member for any reason, even if
they can't articulate why. <br>
<br>
With this in mind, (except for accepting a potential new
Member), "block by proxy" in an email is never OK.��That would
be abuse of the consensus process. Stating disagreement in an
email is OK as long as they add how the proposal can be changed
to sincerely make everyone happy enough to proceed.��<br>
<br>
Better than an email is real live discussion with real live
human beings.��If a proposal is up for consensus at a meeting
that a Member can't be present, rather than try to explain their
position (and how to change the proposal to the satisfaction of
all Noisebridge Members), it would be way better to explain all
of this to another Noisebridge Member, and entrust that Member
to explain their concerns, and add to the discussion on a
positive way at the meeting. <br>
<br>
Best, <br>
Mitch (who also has never blocked). <br>
<br>
<hr>From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:maltman23@hotmail.com">maltman23@hotmail.com</a><br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:d@vidfine.com">d@vidfine.com</a><br>
Subject: RE: [Noisebridge-discuss] Questions and Concerns with
the Proposal to Strike All Members from the Roles<br>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:33:34 -0700<br>
<br>
<style><!--
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P {
padding:0px;
}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage {
font-size:12pt;
font-family:Calibri;
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">tl;dr -- blocking is *not* OK.�� Disagreeing
*requires* helping everyone in the discussion to come up with
a proposal everyone is happy enough with.��<br>
<br>
The one exception is in accepting a new Member at Noisebridge
(where any Member can block for any reason, even if they can't
articulate why). <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Long version:<br>
<br>
As discussed in the really good discussion-group at the BACH
Unconference, for consensus process to function, it is never
OK for someone to merely block.��Blocking means: "If this
proposal is approved as-is, I cannot, in good conscience,
continue to be a member of this organization."��That is a very
strong stance to take.��<br>
<br>
If a consensus discussion is facilitated well, it should never
come to this -- a call for consensus should not happen if
there are people in disagreement.��The facilitator can detect
that there is disagreement, and��encourage further
discussion.��Alternatively,��the facilitator can ask the group
if the discussion should be continued off-line from the
meeting, and postpone consensus on the proposal till a future
meeting.��Or ask if the proposal should be dropped altogether.
<br>
<br>
If someone disagrees during a consensus discussion, it is
never OK to simply say, "I disagree."��To state a disagreement
during consensus discussion, the person disagreeing is
*obliged* to state how the proposal can be changed to make it
OK enough for them *and* for everyone else to be happy enough
to proceed. <br>
<br>
The one exception to this is in accepting a new Member at
Noisebridge:��any current Member (in good standing) can block
acceptance of a potential new Member for any reason, even if
they can't articulate why. <br>
<br>
With this in mind, (except for accepting a potential new
Member), "block by proxy" in an email is never OK.��That would
be abuse of the consensus process. Stating disagreement in an
email is OK as long as they add how the proposal can be
changed to sincerely make everyone happy enough to proceed.��<br>
<br>
Better than an email is real live discussion with real live
human beings.��If a proposal is up for consensus at a meeting
that a Member can't be present, rather than try to explain
their position (and how to change the proposal to the
satisfaction of all Noisebridge Members), it would be way
better to explain all of this to another Noisebridge Member,
and entrust that Member to explain their concerns, and add to
the discussion on a positive way at the meeting. <br>
<br>
Best, <br>
Mitch (who also has never blocked). <br>
<br>
> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 10:31:14 -0700<br>
> From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:d@vidfine.com">d@vidfine.com</a><br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Questions and Concerns
with the Proposal to Strike All Members from the Roles<br>
> <br>
> It sounds like the problem you're trying to solve is
bullshit absentee <br>
> proxy-blocking. Please propose an idea to address that
problem instead <br>
> of tinkering with membership. You might start with
changes to when and <br>
> how proxy-blocking is allowed.<br>
> Signed,<br>
> A member from Ye Age of Myth who pops in from time to
time but has never <br>
> blocked.<br>
> --D<br>
> <br>
> On 10/14/14, 10:08 AM, Torrie Fischer wrote:<br>
> > I feel that some of your questions and concerns can
be addressed by doing some<br>
> > noisebridge spelunking. Here's a mention of
bootstrapping membership from Ye<br>
> > Age of Myth:<br>
> ><br>
> >
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2008_10_07">https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2008_10_07</a><br>
> ><br>
> > And the work done by the previous Membership Team:<br>
> ><br>
> > <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Membership_Team">https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Membership_Team</a><br>
> ><br>
> > Here's some various links to discuss:<br>
> ><br>
> >
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2008-October/001493.html">https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2008-October/001493.html</a><br>
> ><br>
> >
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2008-October/001357.html">https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2008-October/001357.html</a><br>
> ><br>
> >
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2008-October/001386.html">https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2008-October/001386.html</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 04:39:23 PM kjs wrote:<br>
> >> Dear Noisebridge,<br>
> >><br>
> >> It was proposed last week that Noisebridge
should strike all members<br>
> >> from the roles [0]. The reasons stated include
[1]:<br>
> >><br>
> >> 1) We have 40 or so people who essentially have,
"stock options in a job<br>
> >> they never show up to work for".<br>
> >><br>
> >> 2) The only power w/ membership is
consensus-blocking ability. The<br>
> >> observed behavior is people sending in "proxy
blocks" without having<br>
> >> been present for discussion. Some are great,
some are bullshit.<br>
> >><br>
> >> 3) What does it mean to have 50ish members that
never show up or who pop<br>
> >> in every now and again?<br>
> >><br>
> >> My questions and concerns:<br>
> >><br>
> >> 1) To add a new member to the roles requires two
member sponsors and the<br>
> >> consensus of Noisebridge. What's the kernel to
repopulate the member<br>
> >> roles w/o members to consense on new ones?<br>
> >><br>
> >> 2) With regard to number 2 above, I need some
more convincing that<br>
> >> Noisebridge has seen sufficient numbers of
bullshit proxy blocks to<br>
> >> warrant the proposed action. Can we produce a
list documenting proxy<br>
> >> blocks in the past year? And scrutinize the list
to discern the bullshit<br>
> >> proxy blocks from the good proxy blocks?<br>
> >><br>
> >> 3) What is consensus with a quorum of zero?<br>
> >><br>
> >> Sincerely,<br>
> >> A concerned denizen of the Peoples' Republic of
Nosiebridge<br>
> >><br>
> >> [0]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Current_consensus_items">https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Current_consensus_items</a><br>
> >> [1]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2014_10_07">https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2014_10_07</a><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
> > <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
> >
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
> ><br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net">Noisebridge-discuss@lists.noisebridge.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>