[Noisebridge-discuss] Let's celebrate! (was: Consensus and the "old ways")

[Praveen Sinha]

Awesome post John!   I think that top down systems are so pervasive in our
societies, even the most bottom-up focused of us still have to learn how to
deal with distributed decision making.

One perspective that may help is the Pig and Chicken analogy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chicken_and_the_Pig

A pig and a chicken are walking down a road. The chicken looks at the pig
and says, "Hey, why don't we open a restaurant?" The pig looks back at the
chicken and says, "Good idea, what do you want to call it?" The chicken
thinks about it and says, "Why don't we call it 'Ham and Eggs'?" "I don't
think so," says the pig, "I'd be committed, but you'd only be involved."

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:51 PM, John Magolske <listmail at b79.net> wrote:

> * Al Billings <albill at openbuddha.com> [091002 11:34]:
> > I would suggest that anyone who hasn't ALREADY replied on this
> > topic and has an opinion should do so just for diversity and
> > variety's sake.
>
> One thing that's really great about Noisebridge is that we have an
> actual physical space that allows people to meet in real life and
> have conversations. I'm sure everyone here realizes that electronic
> communication mediums do have their limitations.
>
> I feel there's a sense of resignation that things are decided only in
> the context of devices such as the Tues meeting, IRC, or this mailing
> list. I think there's a lot more power in sitting down with people
> face to face, sharing a meal together etc and talking about stuff.
>
> Not like this isn't happening already -- and maybe I'm only stating
> the obvious -- but why not have more on-on-one conversations with
> other people (or other smaller-sized groupings of peoples) involved
> in the space. Find folks who share your view, and folks who have
> differing views. Keeping in mind that compromise will be inevitable,
> bring to the conversation a willingness to listen and a mindfulness
> that no-one is omniscient & possessing the definitive say on what the
> nature of Noisebridge reality is or should be.
>
> Building up dialog and a shared understanding of common and differing
> viewpoints in this way might help reduce the churn time at meetings,
> or obviate the need to bring certain issues to the meeting at all.
>
> What doesn't seem to work so well IMO is when people get really
> impatient, scoff at opposing viewpoints, and carry an attitude that
> they posses a viewpoint that needs to be hammered or skewered into the
> other. This is not aimed at any particular individual. No category is
> immune from this tendency -- I feel I've seen it in new & old members
> alike. This is not to say that's all I've seen...obviously there are
> (way more-so) a lot of really great interactions going on all the
> time. I'm just saying that where the discourse tends towards the
> scoffing/impatient/non-listening end of the spectrum, the outcome ends
> up being furrowed brows + emotional energy & time wasted that could be
> instead put towards hacking together some really cool stuff.
>
> Also, check it out: Noisebridge has had a physical space for one year
> now -- pretty cool! Thank-you everyone who made it happen & continues
> to make it happen. Imperfect though we may be, we've cobbled together
> something much better than the back room at Muddy's one night a week
> or a cramped 83c. Let's celebrate a sense of accomplishment tonight!
>
> ~ John
>
> PS: a recent thread on Hacker News that seems apropos:
>    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=853133
>
>
> --
> John Magolske
> http://B79.net/contact
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20091002/b54cc75b/attachment-0003.html>