[Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus and the "old ways".
Crutcher Dunnavant
crutcher at gmail.com
Tue Oct 6 07:12:05 UTC 2009
Jim. I feel you are trolling me. You've asked for a summary of, what, 3
short paragraphs? But as demonstration that I am not trolling, I'll answer.
First, Noisebridge exists to serve its community. But that community changes
with time. It is conceivable that some large fraction of the community could
decide that they wanted to remain engaged, but alter the decision making
process.
There seems to be a general rejection, amongst certain parties, of the
notion that we could legitimately reject consensus. I'd like to state that I
don't feel that decision making processes have either rights or moral
obligations - I reserve those for people.
As to my specific objection to consensus processes in general, I have
several. This is a (non-exhaustive) listing of them.
I feel that they are structurally biased towards enforcement and propagation
of the will of the founding oligarchy of any group; and have the assumption
of no-change, essentially giving any surviving member veto power to maintain
decisions which they feel benefit them.
I feel that engagement is not an accurate proxy for wisdom; having more time
to burn, or being more personally confrontational should not translate to
greater control of the space.
I feel that this notion of 'do-ocracy' translates to enforcement by the mob,
as determined by the existing social oligarchy (most of who I like a great
deal).
I feel that, rather than 'hacking the system', this delegation to social
bickering has the effect of reifying our primate decision making processes;
as most decisions aren't made in an official capacity, but rather by those
that hold sway.
In short (ha-ha), I believe that consensus processes _in_general_ represent
a moral hazard, one which grows more dangerous and pernicious with the
growth of the group in size and age; until we begin to see, as we have
recently, calls for expulsion.
I am a member. I like the people. I like the space. I believe, and have a
good deal of political, intellectual, and anecdotal experience to back up
those beliefs; that the consensus process is bad for us, as a group, and as
individuals.
I would like to change to a voting system. _any_ voting system. You want 2/3
majority, with mandatory re-ratification after a 2 week cooling-off period
for all decisions? I'd love that. We'd get more done, and have fewer pogroms
about proper politics.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:28 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
--
Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20091006/65c2ac3c/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list