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

[Al Billings]

On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:25 AM, jim wrote:

>   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).

  But is it truly functional in an organization approaching 100  
members to have a system where a single individual can effectively  
table and then block all decision making on any specific issue?

>   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).

  I expect that this is what we'll have to do because, even if a  
subset of us want it, there is no way a consensus organization will  
move to a voting one. At least one of the people who feel very  
strongly that consensus is good and voting is bad will just block.

  Al