[Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus and the "old ways".
Kelly
hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com
Fri Oct 9 00:10:43 UTC 2009
>* 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.
One thing that I've thought about in this debate is that new members
aren't briefed very well on the culture and on existing decisions that
have been made by consensus. In groups that I've participated in that
functioned similarly to this group, we had an official policy of
asking new people to introduce themselves, and then making sure that
someone sat down after business concluded and generally chatted with
them about How We Do Things.
I offered to do that at our last meeting with Christian regarding the
Linux Users Group and his schools project because it seemed really
clear that there was a need, and I think that was helpful for him. It
seemed really clear to me that he meant well, and that he could
accidentally offend us really easily with his behavior (his project is
not affiliated in any way with the boy scouts!) if he didn't
understand the background of how we function.
I think I'm going to bring this up at a meeting in the future. I know
that we used to make more of an effort to recognize new people and it
seems like this is a good, low-overhead approach to doing so.
-Kelly
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:58 PM, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
>
> 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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list