[Noisebridge-discuss] Why Consensus Kills Community

spinach williams spinach.williams at gmail.com
Wed Dec 18 17:40:02 UTC 2013

On Dec 18, 2013 9:23 AM, "Norman Bradley" <pryankster at gmail.com> wrote:
> I attend the RSOF (Religious Society Of Friends - the Quakers) meeting in
San Francisco. All Quaker Meetings are independent organizations with no
involuntary central authority. At our monthly meeting for business all
decisions are arrived at by consensus. By consensus I am not referring to
the process used at Noisebridge. If there are strong opinions one way or
the other the decision will be put off for a month so people can think
about it.
> When I first attended a NB meeting I was surprised by the process used
thee. If you will look at the definition above you won't see anything about
a veto vote.
yeah, noisebridge certainly doesn't use a consensus based process --
evident in that only the strong feelings of members are considered while
all else are essentially on a voting system. in addition to the quakers
(originators of the consensus process as it is practiced in much of the
united states), articles on chiapas describe an informal consensus, wherein
people talk things out day to day in conversation rather than meetings
before coming to a vote to formalize the decision folks had more or less
already come to. noisebridge's tuesday meetings, exclusive to those who can
make it regardless of anyone else's level of investment in the community,
are antithetical to that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131218/b8c5c4a5/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list