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

[Crutcher Dunnavant]

Given that the consensus process requires only those present at one
particular meeting to agree to a thing in order to apply it; at what point
does an existing decision become un-tenable? How many people must disagree
in the future before a decision can be reversed? All of them at a new
meeting?

There are clearly members who do not agree with the consensus process.

As a practical matter, how many of us do you feel would be sufficient to
change it? Do you feel we would need to justify the change by the old
process, or the new? Would a single hold-out be sufficient to block a
transition to a voting system? Would this individual hold sufficient moral
authority?

It has been said during this discussion that a willingness to have one's
mind changed is a necessary contribution to the process. I don't object to
that, but I feel it goes both ways. I'd like some actual feedback on my
questions, they are not rhetorical. What would be sufficient to convince?
What would be sufficient to change?

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Paul Boehm <paul at boehm.org> wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>



-- 
Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20091005/35046026/attachment-0003.html>