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

[Crutcher Dunnavant]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 8:29 AM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:

>
> one comment below:
>
> On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 07:52 -0700, Sai Emrys wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Quinn Norton <quinn at quinnnorton.com>
> wrote:
> > > Again, these are specific _intellectual_ problems. If you could say
> > > the consensus processes kills puppies and makes the net go down,
> >
> > How 'bout "consensus made the DJ booth less accessible"? :-P
> JS: walling up the door to the dj booth was a prank; place blame
> at the lap of "do-ocracy", which is independent of consensus (i.e.
> we could have do-ocracy with a voting process or benevolent
> dictatorship or .... some people approve; anyone can de-wall the
> entrance; approvers think the ladder at the window is a good
> solution--requires motivation for access to an unlocked space.
>   re below: seems okay to me: not a big deal to undo it, not
> as severe as building a car in someone's office, makes a point
> re an intense email thread, nice alternative to yet another
> intense email response.
>
>
You asked about social bickering. This is what I was talking about. It is
foolish to separate the consensus process from the governance of the space.
The consensus process is not the means by which we make decisions, that
happens constantly through direct action. The consensus process is the means
by which we enforce decisions on future members. Once something is decided,
we lock it down, and then say "well, to change that, you'll need consensus,
and I like the way it is".

I know I am in the minority. But it seems I am not alone. I have no
expectation of effect other than discussion; and change must come slowly in
a group like ours.

I'm going to bow out of this conversation, because it seems to be getting a
bit warm, or maybe I am.

* I think there are practical problems with consensus.
* I think there are moral problems with consensus.
* I would like to convince others.
* I would like to not spend every minute I'm in the space being grilled
about it.

Thank you.


> >
> > Unfair of course to blame it on consensus, but it doesn't seem like
> > the product of a healthy process, even a healthily doöcratic one.
> > FWIW, I mostly agree w/ Crutcher, except that I don't think it's as
> > much an issue of consensus vs democracy vs whatever, but an issue of
> > the tone of debate. (I use 'debate' here neutrally, as in a discussion
> > about non-obvious but decidable questions where fallacies* [including
> > informal ones, e.g. argumentam ad Hitlerium :p] are disallowed.)
> >
> > > Ok, I'm a fucking word pedant. I admit it.
> >
> > <3!
> >
> > - Sai
> >
> > * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies (kidding aside, this
> > meta-discussion has seen quite a few...)
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20091006/bc78b325/attachment-0003.html>