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

[jim]

   "George W. Bush" seems to answer the question. 
   seems best to avoid any decision-making on the part 
of the entire group as much as possible. let sub-groups 
do their things. 
   aestetics' (ignored) missive addresses this pretty 
well: the prospect of discussion discourages topics 
not worth of facing the pain of the discussion, and 
therefore only really important topics arise (promoting 
anarchy, i.e. genuine freedom). 
   these questions seem practical: 
      * What items have come up for consensus (not discussion)? 
      * When has a block ever been used? 
      * How often do people "threaten" to block? (Compare this to how
        many people say they're going to do a project and don't) 



On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 09:29 -0700, Al Billings wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:25 AM, jim wrote:
> 
> >  i really don't like "majority rules".
> 
> Why? Everyone gets an equal say? If every member has a vote,  
> especially in a group like Noisebridge, how does a majority vote hurt  
> people over consensus?
> 
>   Al
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>