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

Tue Oct 6 18:44:17 UTC 2009

Excellent point!  It would be a real shame if we were to just suddenly
change all our processes to address the problems that people are thinking of
only to discover that the root cause of the problems was not what we
changed.

For example, I'm inclined to believe that due to the nature of our group,
there will be long-winded discussions on things regardless of which
governance system we use, from total anarchy to total dictatorship.  We like
to think about and therefore discuss things to death, I would posit.

There will always be people jumping in and doing stuff that the rest of the
group may or may not agree with.  It's my perspective that the "do-ocracy"
isn't so much an empowerment, but more of an acceptance of what will be and
a means to reduce the bickering over what was done.  Some of us are not
exactly the sort of people to go through a bureaucratic process in order to
get things approved.

After all the opposite of a do-ocracy is bureaucracy.  I am only trying to
imagine what the first point and the second point would result in if allowed
to collide.  Thinking and talking things to death and attempting to regulate
operations I believe would inevitably result in of byzantine rules system
that no one could possibly follow and actually get something done.

I know, I've tried.

Christie
---
Pigs can fly given sufficient thrust.
    - RFC 1925

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com> wrote:

> I'm convinced that there's at least the feeling that there's a problem with
> the consensus process; would you be willing to lead a working group to sort
> out what the problems are, and come up with possible solutions, or
> alternative process?
> --S
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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."
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20091006/b7e39eed/attachment-0003.html>