[Noisebridge-discuss] Practical Politics

[jim]

+1 
    caveat: seems to me a discussion, either face to face 
or via email, is kind of like music: it's here now and 
then disappears except in the memories of those who 
heard it. discussion seems best to share analysis so's 
to come to an agreement, hopefully on something pithy 
that can be written up as a brief blurb on a sign for 
reference (e.g. at a meeting: "go read the sign, this is 
how we've (previously) agreed how to work together."). 
this assumes consensus on the resulting blurb, of course. 


On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 07:15 -0800, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:
> I'm definitely interested! Our consensus process is clearly a little
> broken but I don't really know too much about how to improve it.
> Aestetix recently said something like "the point of consensus is that
> we never reach it."  This is kind of like the reason I like using
> windows - since nothing has ever Just Worked, I know how to fix,
> jimmy, and reset all kind of things.  It would be cool if we had a
> parallel OS option for decision-making in our space that did actually
> work, for when do-ocracy just isn't enough.
> 
> mediumreality.com
> 
> On Feb 2, 2011 12:34 AM, "Jared Dunne" <jareddunne at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Is anyone else interested in something like what Shannon proposed?
> > 
> >>> I'd still like to do a seminar-style class-thing on Consensus
> process; I'm
> >>> imagining it as a set of lightning talks interspersed with Q&A and
> >>> Discussion periods. Anybody have experience with consensus process
> outside
> >>> of Noisebridge who is willing to give a five-minute "how we did it
> at X"
> >>> talk? Anybody want to try giving the five-minute "how Noisebridge
> works"
> >>> talk? (I think we should have at least three of the "How
> Noisebridge Works"
> >>> talks from three people with different perspectives...)
> > 
> > I'd really like to see something happen even if its simply an
> informal
> > discussion about Consensus at Noisebridge past, present, future. It
> > would be nice to get together everyone who wants to do some
> Consensus
> > Hacking to chat it out in more depth.
> > 
> > I'd be happy to organize or facilitate something if there is
> > sufficient interest.
> > 
> > j-
> > 
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Jared Dunne <jareddunne at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Shannon-
> >>
> >> I like this idea.  I've used Consensus before in some anti-war
> groups.
> >>  I'd be happy to talk briefly about that experience.
> >>
> >> I'm all for Autonomous action (do-acracy as NB calls it), but when
> >> using consensus to work together we can do more than we can acting
> >> autonomously as individuals.  It's strange that consensus seems to
> be
> >> feared and avoided at NB.  I'm newish here so hearing someone give
> a
> >> talk on NB's experience with Consensus would be great to understand
> >> more about why that's the case.
> >>
> >> Depending on when you schedule this... and if I can get a chance to
> >> re-read that handbook I donated...  I could give an overview of
> some
> >> of the key insights it adds to the discussion.
> >>
> >> Jared-
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com>
> wrote:
> >>> To resurrect an old thread with new information, Jared bought us a
> copy of
> >>> "Consensus: A New Handbook for Grassroots Social, Political, and
> >>> Environmental Groups" by Peter Gelderloos
> >>>
> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-January/020237.html
> >>>
> >>> I'd still like to do a seminar-style class-thing on Consensus
> process; I'm
> >>> imagining it as a set of lightning talks interspersed with Q&A and
> >>> Discussion periods.  Anybody have experience with consensus
> process outside
> >>> of Noisebridge who is willing to give a five-minute "how we did it
> at X"
> >>> talk?  Anybody want to try giving the five-minute "how Noisebridge
> works"
> >>> talk?  (I think we should have at least three of the "How
> Noisebridge Works"
> >>> talks from three people with different perspectives...)
> >>> --S
> >>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> I realized in watching the last couple of threads that there are
> people
> >>>> here who know a *lot* about running anarchist and consensus
> organizations.
> >>>> Would any of you be willing to put together a reading list, or
> possibly
> >>>> hold a symposium of some sort, on how this stuff works, and how
> it's
> >>>> supposed to work?
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> --S
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Shannon Lee
> >>>> (503) 539-3700
> >>>>
> >>>> "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from
> science."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Shannon Lee
> >>> (503) 539-3700
> >>>
> >>> "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from
> science."
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss