[Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus Hacking Meeting, this Friday, 6pm

[girlgeek]

On 2/13/2011 9:43 AM, jim wrote:
>      I hadn't heard from anyone that consensus is broken
> until the friday evening meeting.
>      A question: what's the number of people who have
> this opinion?
/Consensus at Noisebridge seems fine to me.
-Claudia
/
>      Seems to me that in the meeting no one made the
> case that consensus is broken, rather the discussion
> pretty much defined what consensus means and the
> examples seemed to confirm that consensus is not
> broken at noisebridge. We use consensus to accept new
> members on a regular basis and have used the consensus
> process for other things lately.,
>      Note: that there are discussions and disagreements
> does not mean that consensus is broken. and if someone
> blocks agreement, that demonstrates that consensus is
> working. It may be that some people don't like to put
> up with discussion or that they don't like not getting
> what they want, but that's different from consensus
> being broken.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 23:17 -0800, Rachel McConnell wrote:
>> We had a very interesting discussion with a lot of good thoughts brought
>> up and I hope to do another.  Jared thanks so much for setting it up!
>>
>> I have heard from many people that "consensus is broken" at Noisebridge.
>>   I'd like to encourage people with this view to come to the next meetup
>> and share why they think this, as I have not got a good understanding
>> yet of why this feeling is out there, and I'd really like to.
>>
>> Rachel
>>
>> Jared Dunne wrote:
>>> Thanks to everyone that came to the meeting tonight.  We had some good
>>> discussions.  I was able to gain a lot more perspective on the history
>>> of the consensus process at Noisebridge.  I also feel like I have a
>>> better understanding of why Do-acracy is so prolific at NB.  I still
>>> feel like the consensus process is underused, but perhaps feel like
>>> that's not terrible thing.
>>>
>>> I didn't facilitate the meeting as actively as I had originally
>>> planned.  It seemed better to let the discussion unfold organically
>>> rather than be to formal, but then we ran out of time.  However, in
>>> hindsight I wish I had jumped in to make sure we did two things.  First,
>>> to consense on plans for any future meetups in this vein. Secondly, to
>>> determine the goals or "points of unity" for future meetups.
>>>
>>> The informal consensus at the meeting's end seemed to be that people
>>> were interested in having future meetups, but we didn't discuss things
>>> like frequency or better days/times.
>>>
>>> I've started non-hierarchical groups before and normally my first point
>>> of business is defining "points of unity".  Informally I advertised this
>>> meetup as being about encouraging education, discussion, and improvement
>>> of the consensus process at Noisebridge.  Should we meet up again, I
>>> would like to see us formally adopt some points of unity so that the
>>> group has a clear direction on what we are trying to accomplish when we
>>> meet up.
>>>
>>> I have sent a request to rack at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> <mailto:rack at lists.noisebridge.net>  to create a "Consensus" mailing
>>> list.  Once that is created, I encourage everyone who came tonight (or
>>> wished they could've made it) to join the list so we can have more in
>>> depth discussions which spamming the general disc list.
>>>
>>> Jared-
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Jared Dunne<jareddunne at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:jareddunne at gmail.com>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>      Just a reminder that this starts tonight at 6pm in the back
>>>      classroom (Church).
>>>
>>>      On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Jared Dunne<jareddunne at gmail.com
>>>      <mailto:jareddunne at gmail.com>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>          On this Friday at 6pm until 7:30pm in the Church Classroom, we
>>>          will be
>>>          having a meeting to discuss consensus.
>>>
>>>          You should come if you are interested in learning more about
>>>          consensus, in hearing tips for being a better participant in
>>>          consensus, or in improving the use of consensus at Noisebridge.
>>>
>>>          I will facilitate the meeting using consensus, and Al will take
>>>          notes.
>>>           The tentative agenda is to start with quick (2-3 min) talks on our
>>>          past experiences using consensus by those who volunteer at beginning
>>>          of the meeting.  We'll then move into a free form round table
>>>          discussion on consensus in general and as it applies to Noisebridge.
>>>          Finally, before we leave we should consense on if we would like to
>>>          meet again and when.
>>>
>>>          Jared-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3441 - Release Date: 02/13/11
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110213/8b82af02/attachment-0003.html>