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

[Paul Boehm]

I felt much more comfortable at other Hackerspaces and Hacker
Organizations i was involved with, that had voting. Voting didn't
actually happen that much, and the whole process was much slimmer and
streamlined, but i felt that everyone felt much more included.
Noisebridge claims consensus, but feels really aggressive in it's
decision making - to me it's process by attrition, with a lot of
people not attending the meetings anymore.

Both at metalab and ccc, there was much less endless arguing, much
less concealed aggression, and also a much more non-hierarchical
distribution of power.

I really like noisebridge and the people there - a lot of my friends
and cool projects are there, but I'm not coming to noisebridge
meetings anymore, because i find the decision making process
unbearable.

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:18 PM, David Kelso <david at kelso.id.au> wrote:
> Generally I keep out of these discussions, due to the vigor with which
> they are fought.
> I would just like to add a +1 to Crutcher's statements, specifically:
>
>> People don't always agree. Sometimes they stop fighting, if you yell at them
>> enough. You haven't convinced them, you just beaten them down. I'd prefer a
>> vote over the abuse. That's what I want changed.
>
> I'm not much of a fighter. There is a reason I don't turn up for
> meetings any more. This conversation itself is a proof of how hard it
> is to suggest a change without a lot of resistance.
>
> I would much prefer a voting system.
>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you believe that dissent and discord are reasons to abandon a decision
>>> making process, then I'm afraid that you're right, consensus isn't going to
>>> make you happy.
>>> The discordant yelling is part of the process.  It's how you know we're
>>> actually talking about something people care about; it's how you know that
>>> compromises are being cooked up.  I would be a lot more worried about the
>>> state of our organization if this stuff wasn't being discussed to death.
>>> I think that the kind of quick up-and-down votes you're talking about
>>> would just serve to either (a) short-circuit the process of actually making
>>> a group decision or (b) give he illusion of having made a decision when in
>>> fact everything's still up in the air.
>>> Back to my previous question, do you actually have something you want us
>>> to do that's being prevented by the consensus process?  Or are you just
>>> upset by the chaotic nature of it?
>>> --S
>>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Al Billings <albill at openbuddha.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We've already got people bitching about this thread all over IRC and
>>>> elsewhere so I'm officially giving up on this for 24 hours (at least).
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>> Otherwise, it's just five or so of us doing rounds.
>>>>
>>>> Al
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Shannon Lee
>>> (503) 539-3700
>>>
>>> "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>