[Noisebridge-discuss] Tor consensus item

[Danny O'Brien]

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't make it to the meeting tonight, but I have an addition to the
> Tor consensus item I'd like to make.
>

Okay, firstly, I really want to emphasise that if people have an issue
with a particular consensus proposal please, please talk to the people
making the proposal directly earlier than the day it is up. One of the
reasons why meetings can go on a long time is that people  announce on
the same day some position, and then expect the entire brunt of the
negotiation is going to take place on that situation in situ during
the meeting. That sort of thing doesn't happen in 99% of any organized
group, despite the appearance of "Mr Smith goes to Washington", and
it's not really going to work here. This goes double if you're not
actually going to be at the meeting.

> I think Tor is something that Noisebridge should back, and personally
> I'm in favor of it. But the nature of the Tor project is that there
> are several things that could go wrong that we can't really predict,
> and there are people who are passionately in favor of the project. The
> problem I see is that if Something Should Go Wrong, I'd like
> Noisebridge to be able to dissolve backing the Tor project by a
> majority vote rather than through consensus. One passionate and
> obstinate person could block Noisebridge from untangling itself from a
> relationship that everyone else agrees has turned poisonous.
>
> I really don't think this is likely, but I don't think it's impossible.
>
> Again, I'm in favor of NB putting its name behind Tor. But I would
> have to block any consensus item that doesn't allow NB to withdraw its
> support through a majority vote of the members. It simply takes too
> much power from the membership.
>

I'm uncomfortable with bolting on majoritarianism onto a consensus
item. It seems to come with too much baggage.

Nonetheless, your concern over actually how to undo an agreement is
fair. With the recent cleaning consensus, we agreed a temporary period
which would require additional consensus to continue. Would either a
three or a six month sunset addition to the consensus item be
satisfactory?

d.

> -Al
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>