[Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus and the "old ways".
jim
jim at well.com
Fri Oct 9 19:21:38 UTC 2009
On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 19:03 -0700, Crutcher Dunnavant wrote:
> Just to drop this in, 'cause it seems to get lost in the noise:
> Understanding != Agreement.
JS: agreed. as to consensus, acceptance seems the main
point (can i accept having deep-crypto here for a couple
of months? yes, it does no harm to me and i see no harm
to noisebridge. not only do i not object, i support it,
as it enhances activity that might teach me or someone
else something interesting.)
>
>
> When a new member joins a group, and that group makes decisions _as_ a
> group, you can expect their preferences and background to come with
> them. You _may_ be able to convince them; but there is no guarantee
> that you will.
JS: agreed. i believe that anyone joining should be willing
to accept the status quo and approach differences as a matter
of lobbying for changes.
>
>
> Unless you're suggesting a 'consensus litmus test' to ensure they have
> correct politik before you will consent to them joining. It would be
> interesting to see _that_ discussion.
JS: of course not. new members should understand what the group
is about, its policies, prior decisions, general etiquette....
some one who wildly disagrees with a lot of stuff probably should
not join, at least not with the intention of making lots of
radical changes. of course, maybe they've got good ideas, but
it'd take a lot of work to turn this boat (which is pretty small
as groups of people go).
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Kelly <hurtstotouchfire at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >* 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>
>
> --
> Crutcher Dunnavant <crutcher at gmail.com>
>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list