[Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus and the "old ways".
jim
jim at well.com
Tue Oct 6 07:15:57 UTC 2009
On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 00:12 -0700, Crutcher Dunnavant wrote:
> 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.
JS: i don't really know what "trolling" means. my responses
are sincere. i am passionately
>
>
> 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>
>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list