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

[madhatter]

If you don't consent, then you don't have to participate. No one is
forcing you to do anything. You are perfectly welcome to walk away.
Where is the problem?

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 03:23, Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, yes. I've read the pamphlet. I _disagree_.
>
> Why is that so challenging? Why do people continue to tell me, in effect,
> "Oh, you must be confused". You've not addressed my concerns in the least.
> You have rather suggested that I don't know what I'm talking about. What I
> am talking about is my, personal, consent.
>
> Pro tip: telling me I don't understand my consent does not garner it for
> you.
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:48 AM, aestetix aestetix <aestetix at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Anyone who is entering a new social system is expressing an interest to be
>> a part of it. There is always an initial period of "normalizing" where
>> people make mistakes as they acclimate to the new environment and learn how
>> the new social group differs from their old one. I speak as someone who has
>> made such mistakes and learned from them.
>>
>> If you are new to a group and don't understand why people react the way
>> they do to your actions, the proper response is to ask questions. This helps
>> you to better understand *why* the status quo is such, and better define
>> your own reasoning and actions within the group. It also shows active
>> interest in becoming a more critical part of the group, and builds up trust
>> with which you can later help new people achieve similar understanding.
>>
>> Consensus is actually very important in encourage a do-ocrary. The harder
>> it is to come to a group decision, the fewer the items that will be brought
>> up for such a decision. This reduces overall clutter for the group and
>> encourages people to decide actions for themselves, rather than relying on
>> the acknowledgments of others. For the decisions which *do* require the
>> consent of all members, this ensures that every concern will be addressed.
>>
>> Before complaining, ask yourself the following questions:
>>
>> 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)
>> If you have better ideas on how things could be run, have you seriously
>> approached a board member with them?
>> How much effort have you made to understand why the current status quo is?
>> (I recommend reading through all the previous meeting notes on the wiki,
>> including those from before 83C existed where the different processes were
>> discussed)
>>
>> Fear and social capital are present in any social group. We are not
>> created equal, and this is why we need to work together. Some people are
>> better at X than others, but they suck at Y, so they need to work with
>> people who are great at Y but suck at X. Some people are great leaders, some
>> are excellent followers.
>>
>> If people could do everything on their own, social groups would not exist.
>> And yet, we are so passionate about our places in them that we thereby prove
>> we need them.
>>
>> aestetix
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:59 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>   nope. he says "possibly"; and anyway, he's expressing
>>> his opinion clearly and unambiguously. he's probably okay
>>> with anybody interpreting his way or the highway (i'm
>>> guessing), but no one has to cave in.
>>>   seems to me people newly joining in have to accept the
>>> status quo, even if they intend to make changes.
>>>   do we have consensus on consensus?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 17:57 -0700, Jason Dusek wrote:
>>> > I would be interested to know how many other people take
>>> >    Jake's missive as something like "My way or the
>>> >    highway.".
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Jason Dusek
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Den 01.10.2009 kl. 16:00 skrev Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net>:
>>> >
>>> > > Leif Ryge wrote:
>>> > >> There is an inherent conservative bias in consensus decision-
>>> > >> making. If
>>> > >> there is no consensus about how or if a thing needs to be changed,
>>> > >> that
>>> > >> thing should generally stay the way it is. This is a feature not a
>>> > >> bug.
>>> > >> ~leif
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > > That's pretty much spot on. It encourages people to join the group
>>> > > who
>>> > > like how we're already doing things. If this principle isn't fitting
>>> > > for
>>> > > you, it's possibly a core value mismatch. We're not for everyone.
>>> > >
>>> > > If you want to dump oil on beaches, you probably shouldn't join
>>> > > Greenpeace. If you want to be an integrated part of Noisebridge,
>>> > > you'll
>>> > > have to agree to our consensus process and the consensus decisions.
>>> > > It's
>>> > > a big part of what has made this entire community possible.
>>> > >
>>> > > Best,
>>> > > Jake
>>> > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> > > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> > > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>



-- 
Christopher Nielsen
"They who can give up essential liberty for temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin