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

jim jim at well.com
Fri Oct 2 17:14:14 UTC 2009


   your response seems a bit heated. a few responses 
interspersed below: 

On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 09:49 -0700, Al Billings wrote:
> 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.
JS: certainly the voting method works in a lot of cases. 
> 
> Please don't pull the "Nazi" card and end discussion by invoking a  
> scary mistake.
JS: i did not have the "nazi" card in mind. GWB's election 
seems a good example of bad results of majority rules. it's 
prominent and recent and common to us all. any group running 
by majority rules can come to a decision that is harmful to 
a minority of its members. 

> 
> 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? 
JS: it seems to me that the consensus process elevates the 
prospect of discussion a little more prominently than does 
the voting process. if not, then it's a wash. 

> 
> >   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. 
JS: seems true. 
> 
>   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.
JS: my "ignored" comment was general, per his subsequent 
response, not intended toward your comments. sorry for 
confusion, meant as an acknowlegement to him. 

> 
> >   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.
JS: on-line behavior is certainly different from in-person 
behavior, at least to some degree a lot of the time. that 
the threat of a block discourages someone from presenting 
a proposal reflects at least as much on the strength of 
the person and/or the proposal that they'd like to present. 
seems like this dynamic works in the voting process too. 
to the extent that it reflects on the person making the 
threat, it raises the question of bullying, good manners, 
being considerate...; my hope is that we humans will note 
offensive intentions and learn to discourage them in 
general. 

> 
>   Al
> 




More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list