[Noisebridge-discuss] Voting experiment.

Fri Sep 10 23:35:28 UTC 2010

In response to the original proposal, I'd be more than happy to
participate in a vote for the purposes of tallying member opinion on
matters. I fully support this experiment, do it, Al.

--
Hephaestus

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Jacob Appelbaum <jacob at appelbaum.net> wrote:
> On 09/10/2010 03:46 PM, Sai Emrys wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> I think I'm going to go with sarcasm but I'll not nitpick too much.
>
>>>> , 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.
>>
>
> Yes, I know about those ideas but I see you claiming it can be done - I
> was actually looking for a citation of a privacy preserving voting
> system that is deployed by one of the groups that you feel uses it.
>
>> And again, it's not really relevant here, because votes (proxy or
>> direct), like blocks, should *not* be private here.
>>
>
> Whaaaaat? You want a ballot but not a private ballot?
>
> We allow anonymous issue raising or blocking through a proxy. To my
> knowledge, we've never had a really serious issue with it. That is to
> say, the blocking *issue* is not private by the *person voicing the
> concern* may have privacy.
>
> Surely you only mean the result of a tally?
>
>>> 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 a mailing list - it isn't nicknamed noisebridge-disgust without
> reason. :-)
>
>> It's just a less explicit tyranny of the majority - one based on
>> social bullying rather than votes. You seem blind to it.
>
> What's the discussion up for consensus? I see none. Al is proposing an
> experiment and no one is stopping him at all. I think his idea is
> interesting and it will probably provoke some great discussions.
> Probably most of them will happen in a face to face context and it may
> bring some social unity. I think that's great and I hope that happens.
>
> If you feel socially bullied you should attempt to resolve it with the
> person(s) in question. In private or public, it's probably better than
> blaming a system that encourages discussion over ignoring each other.
>
> That's really the crux of voting - I feel that it implies a coercive
> force of authority in the group. Who enforces the decision on the group?
> What's the goal? Why do it at all?
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Actually - it's totally relevant. It's not the scale, it's the idea of
> forcing rule over another. That's part of the rule of law, the losers
> get to lose and they have to deal with it - sometimes they get to appeal
> if they're lucky. Often they're simply taxed and pay for the things they
> disagree with.
>
> If you think the Noisebridge consensus process is broken - I encourage
> you to come up reforms that we may incrementally be able to implement
> given the current system.
>
> I'd wish you luck with it.
>
>>
>> You're part of why that's true - your rhetoric is polarizing, not conciliatory
>>
>
> I'm rubber and you're glue Sai - figuratively, of course.
>
> With that said - we're like oil and water. I find you to be just as
> polarizing and difficult to deal with as you seem to find me. I can live
> with it though because I am never forced by you to do anything.
>
> If anything, I often find common ground to agree with you, even if it
> isn't always loudly stated.
>
>> 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 don't care about partisan political labels Sai.
>
> I am arguing that the consensus process is in practice *not used* for
> things where *it is not required*.
>
> Members of Noisebridge are just that: Capital M members in the eyes of
> the law. While we do have some board people, we're actually all members
> of the corporation in a serious and legally binding way. What we choose
> to do it a lot more than others in another 501c3 may be able to do.
>
> Being a member of the NRA/EFF/OtherNGO is not the same level of
> responsibility, risk or power.
>
> As an example - Spacebridge happens by some other process, self
> organized under the umbrella of Noisebridge. They self-fund, they do
> awesome stuff and the people who don't care about space lose nothing, no
> real money, no huge amount of time, nothing is forced on them.
> Spacebridge gets all the benefits of being an NGO without going off to
> make a brand new one.
>
> If the group ever needed the group to do something - we'd have a
> discussion as a whole and work out the details.
>
>> 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.
>
> That's bogus. I would not support that claim and I disagree that this is
> how everything else gets done.
>
> We as a group have made decisions together and I think that it's great
> that it happens really rarely.
>
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> I think doing is good but I also think we need a consensus process.
>
> It doesn't work to go select a new space next week and expect everyone
> else to move simply because someone has our bank information. Etc. Etc.
>
> For some choices - making the NB Paint wall, I think doing is obviously
> awesome.
>
> For other things, like say, renting a new space, I think the group
> should agree and make decisions slowly with conciliations across the
> group, all along the way to creating a shared vision.
>
> That is in fact what we have done and it looks like it is working great
> from where I'm sitting.
>
> All the best,
> Jake
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>