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

[jim]

   in re-reading the entire set of email responses to 
this thread i haven't found any instance mentioned of 
some meeting and issue that were difficult because of 
consensus. 
   most meetings i've been to have had nothing up for 
consensus. a few have raised issues for discussion, 
and i recall some meetings have gone on and on, but 
not in the last many (six or so) months. 
   please, if you recall any, cite meetings and issues 
that seemed difficult because of the consensus process 
(i.e. not conversation that would have happened had 
the process been voting). 
   if the only complaint is that there was a lot of 
talking, i can't see that as a problem. 
   if someone blocked, what conversation was involved? 
how was the blocker irresponsible? 



On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 18:23 -0700, Paul Boehm 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