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

[Al Billings]

I think this was meant for the list, not me, since this isn't about me  
and I'm done with this for now.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com>
> Date: October 2, 2009 10:54:12 AM PDT
> To: Al Billings <albill at openbuddha.com>
> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus and the "old ways".
>
> Dude,
>
> Throwing a public tantrum about how your neeeds aren't being met and  
> then refusing to talk about it is childish.  You have my attention,  
> but in 24 hours I'll be done with this.
>
> --S
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Al Billings <albill at openbuddha.com>  
> wrote:
> Which part of "I'm officially giving up on this for 24 hours" on the  
> list is unclear?
>
> I'm not replying there so please quit directing questions to me,  
> personally.
>
>
> On Oct 2, 2009, at 10:48 AM, Shannon Lee wrote:
>
> If you believe that dissent and discord are reasons to abandon a  
> decision making process, then I'm afraid that you're right,  
> consensus isn't going to make you happy.
>
> The discordant yelling is part of the process.  It's how you know  
> we're actually talking about something people care about; it's how  
> you know that compromises are being cooked up.  I would be a lot  
> more worried about the state of our organization if this stuff  
> wasn't being discussed to death.
>
> I think that the kind of quick up-and-down votes you're talking  
> about would just serve to either (a) short-circuit the process of  
> actually making a group decision or (b) give he illusion of having  
> made a decision when in fact everything's still up in the air.
>
> Back to my previous question, do you actually have something you  
> want us to do that's being prevented by the consensus process?  Or  
> are you just upset by the chaotic nature of it?
>
> --S
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Al Billings <albill at openbuddha.com>  
> wrote:
> We've already got people bitching about this thread all over IRC and
> elsewhere so I'm officially giving up on this for 24 hours (at least).
>
> I would suggest that anyone who hasn't ALREADY replied on this topic
> and has an opinion should do so just for diversity and variety's sake.
> Otherwise, it's just five or so of us doing rounds.
>
> Al
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>
> -- 
> Shannon Lee
> (503) 539-3700
>
> "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Shannon Lee
> (503) 539-3700
>
> "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20091002/8b511f16/attachment-0002.html>