[Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus and the "old ways".
jim
jim at well.com
Tue Oct 6 05:28:42 UTC 2009
could you please summarize your questions so i
don't have to go back and try to find (all of) them?
thanks.
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 20:13 -0700, Crutcher Dunnavant wrote:
> Given that the consensus process requires only those present at one
> particular meeting to agree to a thing in order to apply it;
JS: not necessarily true
> 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?
JS: good to have examples of problems. no way to answer the above
in the abstract.
>
> There are clearly members who do not agree with the consensus process.
JS: and those who do agree, even prefer. me: i think there are
lots of groups with voting process; having a consensus process
provides an opportunity to hack the process: improve it (there
are lots of variations). why do some members 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?
JS: please begin with a specific criticism of consensus.
>
>
> 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?
JS: please summarize your questions.
>
>
> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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