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

Sat Oct 3 01:41:59 UTC 2009

This seems to be telling me: if you disagree, leave.
While that sounds like a very effective decision making process, it isn't
one that sounds very appealing.

I'm a member of NB for the people, mostly, and for the tools as a distant
second. I participate despite what I view as a poisonous consensus process.
If you want to kick me out, I guess you'll need consensus.

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:15 PM, madhatter <m4dh4tt3r at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>

-- 
Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20091002/acd0e501/attachment-0003.html>