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

[Al Billings]

On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:42 AM, jim wrote:

>
>   "George W. Bush" seems to answer the question.

And I can offer hundreds of years of democratic processes from small  
groups to towns to counties, etc. as a counter-example of where it  
works.

Please don't pull the "Nazi" card and end discussion by invoking a  
scary mistake.

We aren't a democracy at a national level anyway so it is apples and  
oranges.

>   seems best to avoid any decision-making on the part
> of the entire group as much as possible. let sub-groups
> do their things.

  Which happens in consensus but not in voting how?

>   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).

You generally still have to discuss before a vote. It isn't like it  
bypasses it. Groups tend to vote "no" on new things if it hasn't been  
discussed and sold beforehand.

  I didn't ignore his missive. I just know he has a *huge* bias  
towards a certain end of anarchist thinking and decision making. This  
is the same person who said that any locks anywhere in Noisebridge  
(including personal lockers) were wrong when it was first brought up  
in IRC.

>   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)

Well, I know the third, which is that people, verbally in  
conversation, threaten to block x or y all the time, which keeps  
people from ever taking certain ideas further. I see it in IRC  
constantly.

  Al