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

[jim]

   i really don't like "majority rules". i've lived 
in consensus communities and accept the occasional 
blabberthons. the essential idea of consensus is 
that the majority can't hurt a minority, and that's 
worth the pain, in my view; i.e. i think the other 
pain is worse and unnecessary (which is even worser). 

   i'd like to know how to improve the consensus 
process (which occurs seldom relative to all the 
other stuff that happens). limiting the time of the 
meeting and the time for any particular topic seems 
to address a lot of the problem. things not resolved 
can be addressed offline during the ensuing week. 
probably good to call people on over-talking, which 
happens. probably also good to deprecate claims of 
trolling--take people at their words. maybe also 
deprecate various visions in favor of anarchy and 
action: vision == ideal == fantasy. 

   might be useful to interpret everything as bids 
for power (and not take any of that too seriously). 


On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 09:05 -0700, Al Billings wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:03 AM, jim wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 14:17 -0700, Jason Dusek wrote:
> >
> >>  we've followed consensus in a way that makes adjustment far
> >>  more difficult than it needs to be.
> >
> > what's an improvement?
> 
> Voting.
>