[Noisebridge-discuss] Fwd: Consensus and the "old ways".
Rachel McConnell
rachel at xtreme.com
Sat Oct 3 00:11:05 UTC 2009
What is wrong with a long thread?
Also, WTF "this thread is too long, I'm going to add to it". (Note that
a lot of people do this, not just Christie.)
People are raising issues they feel strongly about. We are having a
discussion about it. There's a lot to say. We've always told people,
if you don't like something, change it. Let's not give the impression
of suppressing that.
Christie, your points 1 & 2 I completely agree with. Point 3, well, our
'ways' are not set in stone. I hope you aren't saying, 'our way or the
highway' to choose a completely inflammatory phrase.
Rachel "My First Troll" McConnell
Christie Dudley wrote:
> (at the start of writing this) This is the 80th message in this thread.
> I find this pretty astounding. I've deleted most of them, but started
> wondering why people who's opinions I respect have continued posting.
> I'm not seeing what I am expecting to see here, so I'll throw in a few
> of my own on this one.
>
> 1) Bullying happens regardless of the decision making system you have,
> so long as people willing to bully exist. The only difference with
> consensus system is that the bullies would have to target more people to
> quash dissenting opinions. [1]
>
> 2) Criticizing people in public is a form of shame. Public criticism
> becomes humiliation and requires the person to defend against it rather
> than carefully consider it and allow it to effect their behavior and or
> decisions. [2]
>
> 3) Dunno if you noticed, but we're not the only hackerspace in the
> area. For all these new/non members who are throwing about how they
> hate our "anarchist" [3]ways, I recommend you check out Hacker Dojo. I
> hear they do things differently there. [4]
>
> And please folks, try to get a better understanding of what you're
> talking about before you start rambling on about things. It's really
> annoying.
>
> Christie
>
> [1] Take the southern black voter movement for an example of some rather
> extreme attempts to bully in a democracy.
>
> [2] Every leadership training seminar, workshop and guidebook I've ever
> heard of has made a point of emphasizing criticizing in private. It not
> only injures the group member, but undermines the group to criticize in
> front of everyone. Assuming you are not already dealing with a hostile
> group, in which case public criticism is the least of your worries.
>
> [3] It's funny that the word "anarchist" is used to describe a system
> that, although we don't have many rules, is still a system. I would
> characterize it as an ultimately social organization where the culture
> we establish is the rules. Although the rules are not hard and fast,
> things are decided by the cultural traditions and practices.
>
> [4] I am seeing a lot of commentary from people I do not know. This
> means that they're either non-members (at one point I more or less
> memorized the list of members) or they've become members since I got
> busy. Regardless, what that means to me is people are throwing around a
> lot of totally irrelevant, imagined, hypothetically possible in some
> other world issues.[5] Or as Shannon says, "borrowing trouble". You're
> not endearing yourself to the group.
>
> [5] It's easy to imagine things that could happen with this group. It's
> not intuitively obvious what could and could not happen unless you have
> a deep understanding of our group dynamic. The things they teach you in
> school about civics involve a surprising amount of propoganda supporting
> the status quo system. The self-correcting mechanisms which are strong
> here are not obvious with a traditional (non-anthropological) approach.
> ---
> Pigs can fly given sufficient thrust.
> - RFC 1925
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Michael Wright <mike at smallip.com
> <mailto:mike at smallip.com>> wrote:
>
> This one's entirely dependent on the relationship between the people
> involved, the severity of the criticism, and the publicness of the act
> believed to warrant it.
>
> In general I try not to say things in public that would embarrass
> someone. "Hey Shannon, your fly is down" for example, might best be
> said discretely.
>
> On the other hand, if I'm not willing to buy someone a beer or dinner,
> I definitely don't have a relationship such that criticizing them in
> private is appropriate. In that case whatever it is had better reach
> the bar of importance needed for it to be public.
>
> mike
>
>
> On Oct 2, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Liz Henry wrote:
>
> > It's interesting how those assumptions don't hold true for everyone.
> >
> >
> > I would way rather be criticized in public, otherwise it can
> > potentially
> > turn into abuse and cruelty with no witness. Public criticism at least
> > has a sanity check to it. Potentially.
> >
> >
> > - liz
> >
> >
> > Shannon Lee wrote:
> >> Generally, the rule is just the opposite: praise in public,
> >> criticize in
> >> private.
> >> -
> >> -S
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Jason Dusek
> <jason.dusek at gmail.com <mailto:jason.dusek at gmail.com>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 2009/10/02 Al Billings <albill at openbuddha.com
> <mailto:albill at openbuddha.com>>:
> >>>> I think this was meant for the list, not me, since this isn't
> >>>> about me and I'm done with this for now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com
> <mailto:shannon at scatter.com>>
> >>>> Date: October 2, 2009 10:54:12 AM PDT
> >>>> To: Al Billings <albill at openbuddha.com
> <mailto:albill at openbuddha.com>>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus and the "old ways".
> >>>>
> >>>> Dude,
> >>>> Throwing a public tantrum about how your neeeds aren't being
> >>>> met and then refusing to talk about it is childish. You have
> >>>> my attention, but in 24 hours I'll be done with this.
> >>> A rule I'd like to see: no private censure.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jason Dusek
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> >>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ------------------------
> > Liz Henry
> > liz at blogher.com <mailto:liz at blogher.com>
> > liz at bookmaniac.net <mailto: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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> <mailto: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
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list