[Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus and the "old ways".

Quinn Norton quinn at quinnnorton.com
Tue Oct 6 12:02:00 UTC 2009


oooh ooh! I think I might actually have something that might be  
constructive to say! Don't worry though, I'll blow it at the end.

On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:12 AM, 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.

I *think* you're misunderstanding both Jim and Shannon. I think they  
both are looking for practical problems  you've had or know of, rather  
than an ideological problem with the idea of consensus.

> 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.

Absolutely. Would you be willing to accept that this might not be  
happening right now?

> 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.

I think one of the problems is that you and those parties are talking  
at cross purposes. They aren't willing to listen unless you make a  
practical argument as well as a theoretical, because they are not  
working on the theoretical at the moment. They did that, and now they  
are much more covered in paint dust. This is often the case with  
people that have been at things for a while vs people that walk into  
the scene fresh. A lot of what you say may look like so much noise if  
you can't point out how it will fix problems that vex the space. If  
you can show that democracy will fix the mill, get rid of the rats,  
build out the kitchen, get us a comfortable budget, or clean up the  
space, I bet a lot of those recalcitrant old timers would elect you  
their BFF.

> As to my specific objection to consensus processes in general, I  
> have several. This is a (non-exhaustive) listing of them.

Again, these are specific _intellectual_ problems. If you could say  
the consensus processes kills puppies and makes the net go down, then  
point to the mysterious dog corpses and hackers screaming at their  
laptops in the space, people would have something concrete to think  
about w/r/t your objections. I'm not going to talk about them, because  
I want to encourage you to put things in concrete terms. Remember that  
the old timers you are having such a problem with have poured, in some  
cases, a couple of years of sweat of the brow and thousands of dollars  
into making what I think we all must admit is a Fucking Awesome  
Hackerspace. Instead of advocating something on general principle,  
tell us how this will make their lives easier.

> 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).

whom

> 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.

That's not actually what moral hazard means. Common misunderstanding-  
it has to do with isolation from resource risk, like with insurance  
fraud or gov bailouts.

> 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.
>

Ok, I'm a fucking word pedant. I admit it. 



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list