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

Liz Henry liz at bookmaniac.net
Fri Oct 2 21:31:10 UTC 2009


I agree with what Glen says. I also experienced this dynamic in small
and large (100-person) long term groups.  It can be a bit painful and
means long meetings for any issue that lots of people care about. But it
works and is worth it.

Adding more hierarchical structure only minorly decreases the hours of
meetings and discussion, and in my opinion, added structure guarantees
that diversity will be squashed and diverse voices not heard, not
because the people in power are consciously evil but because the people
not accustomed to being "authorities" won't envision themselves with
authority.

The other pattern I saw was that someone is always shaping up to be the
scapegoat, so it's good to be aware of that and be cautious, as a
community, about that role and who's in it and how they get out of it -
redemption/rebuilding of trust or by being booted out.



- Liz

p.s. DJ Booth wall is totally hilarious!!!




Glen Jarvis wrote:
>> Having never
>> spent a lot of time in a large, consensus based organization, I didn't
>> know it would translate into four+ hour long meetings when important
>> decisions need to get made and deadlock on decisions due to arguing
>> and blocking.
> 
> As an outsider to Noisebridge (I've only shown up to the old and new
> space together about 4-5 times -- but I've recently joined the mailing
> list), I can share some of my experiences with consensus in other
> organizations.
> 
> I've been involved in an organization that ran its affairs with
> consensus for over 20 years (I think over 25, but I can't say that
> with authority). They were larger in numbers than this (sometimes up
> to 200+ members at a time - but always in flux), but we were only
> physically together about 10 consecutive days during the year...
> (unlike noisebridge).
> 
> My personal experience (and I cannot reproduce this nor qualify this
> in any way), is that what noisebridge is feeling is pretty typical for
> consensus when the group reaches above a certain threshold.  We called
> our meetings 'circle'... (they still do, I don't live close to them
> anymore).
> 
> When things get this large, most people have learned "If it's not an
> issue that I personally care about, I don't need to attend circle. I
> can just trust the process." And, that generally cuts down on the
> 'drama' -- but, by far, it doesn't eliminate it. One or two souls have
> complete autonomy to wreak havoc on the entire group (be design). And,
> many people speak, repeating the same thing that has been said, many
> times over.
> 
> Additionally, I remember when one of our members was accused of
> grossly inappropriate sexual behavior to another member (I think
> molestation, or rape, or something similar). The task in question was
> to potentially remove this accused member.
> 
> Removing a member that is already present, for us, did not work well
> with consensus... Feelings ran high for a good deal of people. This
> was not handled in four hours, nor in four days. This took a very long
> time -- but, eventually consensus was gained and the member was asked
> not to come back for four years.
> 
> If I've learned nothing else in the past ten years, I've learned this:
> 
> Groups that want this consensus process, generally, choose the pain of
> the process (and the chaos/havoc) over the potential that a single
> individual can be steamrolled into something they aren't comfortable
> with. And, I've come to appreciate consensus for that reason.
> 
> Maybe sharing this experience wasn't helpful. Hopefully it was in some
> small way. If nothing else, know that the pain you are feeling is not
> unusual for this process. Hopefully, that's at least a little
> comforting.
> 
> I am an outsider. And, I gladly accept the group for what it is --
> especially if they are so willing to share their space, creativity,
> and equipment with me...
> 
> Warmest Regards and the best of luck,
> 
> 
> 
> Glen Jarvis
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> 
> 


-- 

------------------------
Liz Henry
liz at blogher.com
liz at bookmaniac.net
http://liz-henry.blogspot.com

"Without models, it's hard to work; without a context, difficult to
evaluate; without peers, nearly impossible to speak." -- Joanna Russ



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list