[Noisebridge-discuss] Membership consensus and blocking

Micah Lee micahflee at gmail.com
Tue Jul 21 00:17:31 UTC 2009


I'm a fairly recent NB member and have hardly participated in the
decision making of the group, but I have worked with the consensus
process a lot in the past, and I think what Mitch said about blocking
is dead on.

Each group that uses consensus is different and does things in their
own way, but in my experience with consensus, blocking is pretty
serious, and I've met people who have been doing consensus for 30
years and never blocked. Most of the time (in my experience) people
only block consensus when the group is considering something really
stupid or dangerous or unethical. There's also something called
"standing aside", which means that you don't agree with the proposal
that everyone else does, but it's not serious enough for you to block,
so you let it be known that you're standing aside for this decision.

The point of consensus is to come up with decisions that everyone is
happy with. If someone voices a concern about a proposal, it's likely
that a lot of other people have a similar concern but just haven't
voiced it. After discussing it and coming up with a new proposal that
addresses the concern it not only almost always ends up being a better
proposal, but everyone feels comfortable with the decision in the end.

Another thing I've noticed about NB consensus is no one uses all the
goofy hand signals. It's sort of fun to have everyone twinkling their
fingers and doing direct response guns and process point triangles...

micah

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Mitch Altman<maltman23 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'ts been quite awhile since we've had any discussion about consensus.  And
> there are way many more people involved with Noisebridge now.  Talking about
> consensus and what it means is a good thing to have ongoing within the
> group.
>
>
> I'd like to give a bit of generalized info on my thoughts on a healthy
> consensus process.  Then I follow with a bit on membership process.  See if
> this makes sense.
>
>
> In a healthy consensus process, no one blocks.  (And thanks, Ceren, for
> bringing this up.)
>
>
> Let me explain.  In a healthy consensus process, if a decision is up for
> consideration in the group, and someone doesn't like it, or is uncomfortable
> with it in any way, then it is up to them to express their concerns, and it
> is up to everyone in the group to work it out.  And it is worth everyones'
> while to work things out, since we all want everyone in the group to be
> happy enough with all decisions we make.  If anyone senses that someone is
> not comfortable, or senses that someone has something to say, then it is up
> to everyone in the group to ask people to speak up and express their
> concerns, making a safe space for everyone to do so.  Discussion continues
> until everyone in the process is happy enough with the proposal (which may
> possibly end up being quite different than the original proposal).  A call
> for final consensus is only requested when it is apparent to everyone that
> everyone is happy enough with the proposal.  The question can even be asked,
> whether there are still any concerns, before calling for a final consensus.
> In this way, everyone in the group is happy enough with all decisions the
> group makes.
>
>
> In a healthy consensus process, decisions made are not cast in stone.  Any
> decisions can be brought up for discussion again at any future time if
> anyone in the group is feeling that the decision is not working for them.
> In this way, everyone in the group is happy enough with the way things are
> going.
>
>
> In a healthy consensus process it is up to everyone in the group to be aware
> and considerate of others thoughts and feelings, even when someone disagrees
> with another (or others).  It is important for all of us to want everyone in
> the group to be happy enough with the way things are going, and for each of
> us to do what we can to work things out when we feel that something is not
> working well for each and every one of us.
>
>
> In a healthy consensus process, blocking is a means of last resort.  It is
> only used when one feels that a decision is about to be made that will make
> the group become something they do not want to be a member of.  Before
> blocking, it is important for a person to call for more discussion, and
> state their concerns, and, if possible, to state possible ways to resolve
> their concerns.
>
>
> To maintain a healthy and functional group, it is very important that
> everyone in the group be happy with each and every new member.  The
> membership process needs to attract people we want in the group, and keep
> away people we collectively do not wish to be part of our group.
>
>
> As Ceren stated, it is up to each of us to attempt to work things out with
> any potential new member before the meeting where a consensus is being
> called for their membership.  If you make a sincere effort to work things
> out, but still have reservations, then it is up to you to bring this up with
> others at the meeting.  If everyone present at the meeting is not happy
> enough about the new person becoming a member, then that person will not
> become a member at that meeting.  If that person still wishes to be a
> member, they can always ask for consensus at another meeting after
> attempting to work things out with anyone that thngs need to be worked out
> with.  It is also totally fine for anyone to state that they do not know
> enough about the potential new member, and that they wish for more time to
> meet them before calling on a consensus.  But please be considerate of
> others feelings in this process.  Delaying someone's membership may deter
> them from becoming a member.  If someone is up for membership, and if
> someone has reservations about them (whether because of something in
> particular, or simply because one isn't known, it would be cool to try to
> meet them before the meeting.
>
>
> All of the above can fit within our current membership process.
>
>
> If there are people that wish to improve our membership process, then please
> get together and form a committee and improve it.  Create a proposal
> and bring it up for discussion.  The membership process needs to be
> something everyone at Noisebridge is happy enough about.
>
>
> Mitch.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------
>
>> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:59:27 -0700
>> From: ceren at magnesium.net
>> To: noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] Membership consensus and blocking
>>
>> I'm not trying to start another flamewar, I promise. Requisite smiley
>> goes here. :)
>>
>> But in the interest of sanity, I'd like to remind the membership and
>> potential membership of (what is at least my understanding) the approval
>> process.
>>
>> 1) Dear Member, if you're not happy about an incoming member candidate,
>> it is Your Responsibility To Try To Work Your Shit Out with that person
>> in the 4-week period between the name being entered in the binder, and
>> the consensus vote.
>>
>> Yes, Member, you're expected to be the bigger person and step up and try
>> to fix whatever drama you have, or at least resolve it in a reasonably
>> mutual way that doesn't leave you feeling uneasy about that person's
>> membership.
>>
>> You are in the advantaged position in this situation, so take the lead
>> in trying to resolve things. This might not always end up working, but
>> you are expected to give it a genuine good-faith effort.
>>
>>
>> 2) Let's halt this fast-tracking members crap. Yes, it seems like a
>> clever way to hold a impromptu rah-rah vote-of-confidence in
>> SomeNewPerson's being a CoolDude. However, I think it actually sucks. A
>> lot.
>>
>> (I'm seriously planning to block the next early-induction attempt. I
>> haven't yet because I didn't want it to be about any person in
>> particular, and explaining myself at the time would be putting that
>> person up for membership in an unjustly awkward spot.)
>>
>> - If you're a member and can't make it to the space within a month, and
>> haven't met the new person or read the binder in that time, tough
>> noogies. But if you're a member and you haven't made it to the space in
>> a week or two, you suddenly get no input on an incoming member's
>> vote/consensus? That's sucky.
>>
>> - Going back to "It's your responsibility to work shit out," the
>> fast-tracking gives current members no chance to Work Shit Out with an
>> incoming member, instead forcing them to make a Big Deal and publicly
>> block consensus. Not cool, putting both the current and incoming members
>> on the spot like that. We have a process that lets current members avoid
>> being the Bad Guy, and I don't think we should be casually taking that
>> privilege away.
>>
>> " If an existing member has a problem with one of the applicants,
>> they should take time during that month to try and resolve the problem."
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Noisebridge_Membership
>>
>> tl;dr,
>> - Ceren
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>



-- 
Freelance web development, graphics design, etc.
http://www.micahleedesigns.com



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list