[Noisebridge-discuss] Voting experiment.

[Sai Emrys]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
> I was being sarcastic - you caught me.

You're being bombastic. Big difference.

>>, and can be done in a privacy-preserving way.
>
> [citation needed]

Special case of privacy-preserving votes in general, which are a
special case of token based crypto.

And again, it's not really relevant here, because votes (proxy or
direct), like blocks, should *not* be private here.

> I find that people are not heard very well in a system that
> values ballots over discussions.

And I've found that the "discussions" around Noisebridge, as you
exemplify here, tend towards bombast over entrenched positions rather
than seeking concensus.

It's just a less explicit tyranny of the majority - one based on
social bullying rather than votes. You seem blind to it.

> Actually, I'm making a point. If the government of India isn't getting
> it right - how will we?

You're making an irrelevant, flamebait point. Government-scale voting
systems, and the many problems they have to deal with, are irrelevant
to the blunt fact that the Noisebridge consensus process is broken and
bears very little resemblance to a sane one where people actually do
try to seek consensus.

You're part of why that's true - your rhetoric is polarizing, not conciliatory

Your argument (and aestetix's) also reminds me of the Republicans now
- basically, you're arguing that the fact that it's broken is a good
thing, because it means that the consensus process is in practice
completely ignored (which is true) and that actual decisions are made
by other means (i.e. people do whatever they want) which you claim to
be a better method.

I wonder whether you would support extending that claim, so that e.g.
people become members merely by writing their name somewhere without
requiring somebody's approval, and other people can remove members by
deleting their name, too. That would actually be analogous to how
everything else gets done.

If you really believe that doöcracy is better than consensus, and you
*like* consensus being broken, why defend consensus rather than
suggesting it be replaced with whoever-acted-last-ocracy?

- Sai