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

Jason Dusek jason.dusek at gmail.com
Fri Oct 2 20:23:09 UTC 2009


2009/10/02 jim <jim at well.com>:
> On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 14:17 -0700, Jason Dusek wrote:
> > we've followed consensus in a way that makes adjustment far
> > more difficult than it needs to be.
>
> what's an improvement?

  Rulings need a renew-by date. Consensus on "perpetual"
  decisions must be renewed at regular intervals. For example,
  rules like:

 .  We don't solve problems before they happen.

 .  Anything left in the commons area is property of
    Noisebridge.

  should be assigned lives of something like 2 months. When a
  rules "renew-by" date arrives, it is brought before the group
  for renewal; if renewal is blocked the rule is gone.

  There is one rule that is beyond this process, of course: "Be
  excellent to each other.". This "one rule" binds us to offer
  newer members a simple and efficient way to overturn rules.

  One other nice feature of regular rule renewal is the removal
  of useless or out-of-date rules; it also allows us to
  experiment with rules for a set period. Some rules I'd like to
  try for short periods:

 .  No drinking in the space.

 .  No pants in Church and Turing.

  As long as rules are easy to get rid of, it's going to be easy
  for us to experiment with the rules; if getting a rule out is
  as hard as getting it in place, we'll be ever more weighed
  down by old decisions. Right now, we don't know if we have
  consensus; we just know that we had it once upon a time.

--
Jason Dusek



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list