[Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus and the "old ways".

jim jim at well.com
Fri Oct 2 16:09:29 UTC 2009

   insightful. seems right. not to take it seriously, 
as this is how all groups work, fundamentally. accept 
it (seems like you do). at least we have no midnight 
death squads. 
   the agreement is to respect blocking, so block, if 
you think it will do some good. the "oligarchy" has 
to respect it. probably good to marshall others who 
are sympathetic (politic beforehand), if only as a 
matter of comfort--"I'm blocking because I don't like 
the consensus foolery!" seems kind of naked (naked is 
good, but subject to chills). 
   as to me, the idea that consensus masks oligarchy 
doesn't bother me--most activities don't involve the 
consensus process, so just act and be happy. nice to 
be in an anarchy. 

On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 02:17 -0700, Crutcher Dunnavant wrote:
> I am not trolling. You may disagree with me, but I am serious.
> I remain unconvinced that the 'consensus process' is anything other
> than a dressed up form of oligarchy, where the 'important' community
> members make 'reasonable' points, and objections are frequently
> labeled 'trolling'. I think its a bad fit for a large group, and the
> social dynamics involved make me very uncomfortable - I am required to
> either be complicit in decisions, or be the asshole who says "I
> block". Frequently, I simply avoid meetings, because the whole thing
> feels like bullying.
> The consensus process is something that I do not consent to. But
> should I block every decision on that basis? Would the organization be
> willing to count my block as 'not serious' or 'trolling'? I am
> complicit in that I have not yet pursued this line of objection; and I
> have not pursued it entirely out of fear of the social back-lash that
> I expect would result.
> We have a governance process. It lets us make some decisions. But
> don't kid yourself, this isn't a magical anarchist paradise. There is
> a power hierarchy, and it is enforced.
> I resent being placed in the position of choosing between complicity
> or social rejection. I would prefer to be able to say "No, I don't
> want this" and possibly be outvoted.
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Jason Dusek <jason.dusek at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>          When we have disagreement, do we have consensus? If something
>          was consensed to by some members some time ago, do we have
>          consensus on it now even in the face of vehement
>         disagreement?
>          I've understood the consensus process to be about not riding
>          roughshod over people in the community; but one side effect
>         of
>          it is to allow early decisions to remain unchallenged without
>          incredible effort and coordination. Naturally, we can expect
>         a
>          bad fit of past rules to present circumstances now and again;
>          we've followed consensus in a way that makes adjustment far
>          more difficult than it needs to be.
>         --
>         Jason Dusek
>         _______________________________________________
>         Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>         Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> -- 
> Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list