[Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus and the "old ways".
jim
jim at well.com
Tue Oct 6 08:07:24 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 for consensus. thank you for
your response.
>
>
> 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.
JS: seems reasonable to me.
>
>
> 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.
JS: first sentence seems odd to me; myself, i feel threatened
by the latest complaints about consensus as they seem not to
be specific, seem sometimes non-sequitor, and seem not to
value or at least acknowledge the primary justification for
consensus: to be considerate of every individual wrt
ramifications of decision-making.
second sentence seems right to me.
>
>
> As to my specific objection to consensus processes in general, I have
> several. This is a (non-exhaustive) listing of them.
JS: thanks!
>
>
> 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.
JS: i don't understand how the process of deciding only
if no member objects has to do with propagation of the
will of a founding oligarchy. any member, not any
surviving member, has power of veto. but there's an
assumption of good-will on the part of objectors: that
they object wrt some interest of theirs that may be
impacted by the decision at hand.
you've mentioned "oligarchy" a few times. there are
some members who have been around for longer than others,
and there are some members who have some kind of power,
but i don't see a hierarchy: i.e. chain of command. the
power that a few individuals have is essentially a matter
of taking on responsibilities. i haven't seen evidence of
reckless or inconsiderate exercise of influence. please
explain.
>
>
> 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.
JS: how does the above have anything to do with consensus?
engagement, wisdom, degrees of confrontational style...,
these exist in degrees (or deficiencies) in any group
regardless of the formalities of making decisions.
>
>
> 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).
JS: i don't get it. "do-ocracy" to me translates to permission
to do whatever we like, as we like, how we like, regardless
of others' ideas. "if you want something to happen, do it" is
what i've understood, the opposite of mob enforcement (which
is itself somewhat contrary to oligarchical enforcement, both
of which seem contrary to do-ocracy and the essential tenent
of consensus: do as you please with confidence that others
can't screw you up).
>
>
> 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.
JS: what is delegated to social bickering? certainly not the
meeting and not the process of consensus. ("reify" to treat
abstraction as fact, yes?) please re-express in neutral and
descriptive terms: the phrase "delegation to social bickering"
is pejorative. my take is that you mean "the process of allowing
unfettered discussion", which i'm for.
please give at least a couple of examples. what decisions
have been made by those who hold sway, and who is holding
sway, and what is "holding sway" in our case?
how properly to make decisions? an argument of efficiency
does not have much meaning to me: arguments showing promotion
of happiness or satisfaction or cooperation... mean more to me.
> 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.
JS: that you believe so is okay with me, 's okay we disagree,
but you have not made your case to me. how does the consensus
process represent a moral hazard? seems the opposite to me,
as there's a moral basis for considering each person's
interests in light of deciding to make changes. how does
consensus present a moral hazard?
>
> 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.
JS: i cannot see that you have made any case for this belief.
i think the consensus process is good for us. it's not widely
practiced, and if we can develop a style that works, we may
do the world some good.
>
>
> 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.
JS: that you'd like to change is okay with me. i don't want to
change. if you make some case as to how consensus was harmful,
i want to understand, but you have to reach my point of view,
not just make claims. alternately, show how some (any) voting
system is superior morally.
JS: if "trolling" means intentionally provoking a response
for amusement, then it seems the length and nature of my
replies show i'm not trolling.
note your responses were not questions, although that's
okay with me; i figure you're sincere.
what examples of concensus can you present that back up
your points? can you think of any variations of consensus,
perhaps modifications or improvements that retain the
essence of consensus and address your concerns.
best i can make sense, you're most concerned about an
oligarchical control, which to me has little or nothing
to do with consensus (you haven't explained how consensus
reinforces oligarchical control, you've only made the
claim, which doesn't make sense to me).
>
> 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