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

ian ian at sonic.net
Fri Oct 2 19:46:05 UTC 2009


I don't post here much.  I'm not a member.  Feel free to disregard
everything I have to say.

> I object to the requirement that I be complicit or the asshole.

Here's the thing.  If you lose a vote but choose to remain involved,
you are required to be complicit, to implement the decision you
disagree with.  The consensus process specifically includes the notion
of the "stand aside," to allow you to disagree but permit the process
to continue.  If you don't want to be an asshole, but you don't agree,
stand aside.

Consensus provides you with the ability to, when you care enough, go
ahead and be that asshole.  It leaves the decision about how
comfortable you are with that in your hands, instead of the hands of
the group.  The social dis-incentive is important in encouraging
compromise.  If people liked disagreeing, they'd do it forever.
Consensus depends on the fact that nobody wants to be an asshole, so
they'll compromise.

As I see it, the main issue with democracy is not the silencing of a
single dissenting voice, but when there is an approximately even split
on an issue.  When a 51% majority can make a decision, it doesn't
encourage the sort of discussion and compromise that is required for
people to continue functioning as a cohesive group.  That is, majority
rule has the ability or alienate a large number of people, not just a
single person.  It encourages people to become sharply polarized, to
divide into discrete camps instead of finding novel solutions that
work for everyone.

> I object to the fact that no decision can outlast someone deciding to wall
> up the dj booth for giggles (though that was hilarious, seriously: epic).

But it can.  If someone walls up the DJ booth, someone else can go
un-wall it.  Drywall is far less permanent than people's decisions,
perceptions, and opinions.  If everyone agrees there shouldn't be a
wall there, then there won't.

> People don't always agree. Sometimes they stop fighting, if you yell at them
> enough. You haven't convinced them, you just beaten them down. I'd prefer a
> vote over the abuse. That's what I want changed.

Yeah, that could kinda suck.  Is this something you've seen to be a
problem in specific instances, or just a possible risk?  I bet there
are a number of ways NB could attempt to address this issue.

I'm hearing a lot of discussion of the merits of one process or the
other.  There are excellent points all around, but so far the only
proposal I've heard is to switch to a democratic process with a 50%
majority rule.

Perhaps outlining the actual issues would be helpful in coming up with
proposals to create a process that works for everyone.  For example,
Crutcher's two main issues in this email seem to be:

1.  "I object to the requirement that I be complicit or the asshole."
I read this to mean, he doesn't like the social position he's placed
in when he's the sole dissenter.  I've also heard people being
frustrated with the notion that a sole dissenter can derail a process
for some time.  Perhaps it'd make sense to examine NB's definition of
unanimity, maybe switching to a U-1 process or similar (ie. two blocks
are required):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Non-unanimous_consensus

2. "People don't always agree. Sometimes they stop fighting, if you
yell at them enough."   This sounds like a concern about the eventual
effect of very long discussions with an overwhelming majority in
agreement, and only a few dissenters.  A possible solution might be to
allow a blocking individual to table an issue after it's been
discussed for some reasonable time (say 30 minutes in person, or some
number of messages online).  This way, everyone can get some space
from it, and the discussion can come up again later.  Having to defend
one's point-of-view continuously for hours sucks, and doesn't really
put one in a position to compromise at all.  A little time might lead
people to come up with new, more creative proposals.

As to a process for changing NB's decision making process, I propose a
sunset period on any changes.  That is, try out a change for, say, 2
months.  If it works well, the change can be ratified using the
original (pre-change) process.  If it doesn't work, it expires.  This
allows for experimentation without the changes becoming
self-perpetuating.

-Ian



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list