[Noisebridge-discuss] consensus process meeting project postmortem (worth reading)

[Patrick Keys]

I'm starting this new thread for everybody to benefit, share opinions, 
and hopefully gain interest in joining a subsequent consensus process 
meeting.  It's been decided off-list that consensus process discussion 
should remain on this main discuss list because everybody at noisebridge 
has a stake in how we reach consensus at noisebridge.

My personal take-away from the consensus process meeting was many 
things, as follows (PLEASE COMMENT ON ANY AND/OR ALL OF THESE!):

* people claim the noisebridge consensus process is broken but nobody 
knows exactly why

* the hassle of the consensus process results in circumventing the 
process in favor of the do-ocracy

* do-ocracy is also referred as "autonomous action" or perhaps even 
vigilante action

* a random sample based on the consensus process meeting is that half 
the people that participate at noisebridge aren't noisebridge members

* everybody at noisebridge can participate in the consensus process but 
only members can block an item up for consensus

* the only benefit of being a noisebridge member is the right to block a 
consensus item

* some people at Noisebridge will block any consensus item based on 
their personal general opinion against consensus

* comparing bringing an item up for consensus versus just handling a 
matter do-ocracy style, there is absolutely no incentive at all for 
bringing an item up for consensus (quite the opposite!) because that 
could just result in a block of the item.

* although we have weekly meeting notes, the details of any consensus 
item and the reasoning of any consensus decision are ultimately at the 
discretion of the weekly meeting note-taker.


Patrick