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

[quinn]

On Oct 2, 2009, at 5:17 AM, 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.

honest to god, no trolling, pure quinn-confusion: why did you join
noisebridge? why did you join a consensus anarchist social experiment if
you didn't want to do that? i feel like that's like me joining the
republicans and saying 'Ok, this group is great and all, but let's drop the
conservative nonsense, ok? That's just a game, right? Guys? Guys?'

it's not even like thinking we're all loons stops you from using the shop
and leaving, even. we're *that* loony.