[Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus and the "old ways".
Joachim Pedersen
joachimp at gmail.com
Tue Oct 6 07:12:13 UTC 2009
good numbers to shoot for, 111, 123,
but I get the prime reply :) 101
-Joachim
------------------------------
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 22:28, 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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