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

[jim]

JS: very thoughtful reply. 

On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 09:59 -0700, Crutcher Dunnavant wrote:


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 .... 

> 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".
JS: i don't recall asking about social bickering, but social bickering 
is certainly an issue. seems that the consensus process is part of 
the governance of the space. the consensus process is one of the means 
by which we make decisions. much more often we make decisions through 
direct action, exactly as you say. 

   seems to me that if someone has simply done something, someone else 
can undo it without resorting to consensus; i've heard various members 
say something to that effect. 
   as an example, i was delighted to see the dj booth door walled up, 
mainly as it was a refreshing (and thoughtful) approach to 
participation in a discussion, very do-ocratic. very quickly the tho't 
occurred that dr. j. might have trouble, and very quickly after that 
it occurred that opening the doorway would be very easy, so not much 
harm and a point made. 

   if something has been decided by concensus, then it seems right 
that we undo it with concensus. that suggests we reserve concensus 
decision making for certain classes of issues. 
   that future members are bound to decisions that have previously 
been made seems a point worth exploring (the point of jason's 
original email, yes?). 
* to address that, it seems any consensus binding decisions should 
be made known to new members, so they can assess joining. 
* also to address that, there's a suggestion that decisions have 
time limits; i would think the time limit could vary from decision 
to decision, from a week to a year..., and maybe allow for the 
possibility of an infinite binding (e.g. be excellent to each other), 
revokable only through another concensus decision. 

> 
>  
> 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.
JS: you've made points that have reached me. while i'm committed 
to consensus, i love the idea of adjusting our approach to 
address your (and everyone else's) concerns: after all, that's 
the point of concensus. 
   the spirit of concensus is contrary to the lockdown scenario 
that you've presented. i hope you stick around in the conversation. 
> 
> 
> I'm going to
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.
>         
>         
>         
>  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.  to not spend
> every minute I'm in the space being grilled about 
JS: true, likely more than you've articulated above, we should 
welcome discussion and flush any other problems out. 
> * I think there are moral problems with consensus.
JS: i get this only wrt the problems you've noted above, 
but not with the fundamentals of the consensus process; 
after all, the spirit is to support every individual, at 
least not allow harm. 
> * I would like to convince others. 
JS: you've done a great job of shaking my thinking up. 
> * I would like to not spend every minute I'm in the space being
> grilled about it.
JS: i'm guessing you really don't want to face hostile 
harrassment, you the bad guy ("asshole", i recall) who 
wants to destroy our precious (and it is precious to 
some of us) concensus process. i'm also guessing you 
would like to show up and dick around with whatever 
project-hack-... that interests you, even in the face 
of queries that are sincere, thoughtful, supportive.... 
   maybe once in a while we could chew on this issue? 

JS_PS: quinn's remark below is well-taken: we should be 
on top of the tone of our debates, both self-aware and 
also willing to challenge remarks (not people) that 
seem off-point, argumentative, and otherwise dilute a 
proper discussion (back to be excellent to each other). 


> 
> 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>