[Noisebridge-discuss] Keeping associate members in their place
Charles Tang
cjtang1 at asu.edu
Thu Dec 19 19:32:15 UTC 2013
Also, think of the consequences of adding a political framework to a
consensus driven community with people problems: Homogeneity, Emotional
intensity and Nondemocratic individuals.
All of these problems will be magnified when you add a political majority
takes all or hierarchical voting structure. Look to the legislature of this
country as an example, when there is a lack of homogeneity and a
disproportionate amount of influence over ideas, you get fractures,
conflict and bitterness in the majority.
Maybe if we use a bit of reframing here, we could get over it, and back to
hacking whatever.
On 19 December 2013 11:17, Charles Tang <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
> This question on consensus. . . . the premise is a people and
> discourse problem.
>
>
>
> I've read through a few comparative studies on the subject, and it does
> seem to me that on all cases it depends on the people involved.
>
>
>
> Please consider the following, very applicable journal article:
>
>
>
>
> https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/33654/1/Jain_Ambika_201211_MA_thesis.pdf
>
>
>
> The biggest problems facing organizations similar to noisebridge (VNPOs) are
> as follows:
>
>
>
> 1. Time
>
> 2. Homogeneity
>
> 3. Emotional intensity
>
> 4. Individual differences
>
> 5. Nondemocratic individuals
>
> 6. Environmental constraints
>
>
>
> Now, even if one does add a hierarchy to the situation, does that resolve
> these problems? I'm reading possibly, where more that fifteen (15) they
> found that the group would . . . "loose intimacy and would make informal
> decision making difficult." However, they found that when in a collectivist
> non-buearucratic governance style, larger groups seem to me more interested
> in the organization than self interest. Which moots arguments that these
> dissenters are acting in some sort of self interest. Which was the brunt of
> the articulation of why consensus kills community. What is clear is that we
> are dealing with emotionally charged individual differences here.
>
>
> However, the article found that even larger organizations, beyond the
> bright-line of being considered a small group, can overcome differences if
> they were to do the following:
>
>
>
> *"Implications for practice intended for non-bureaucratic VNPOs*
>
>
> *Challenge*
>
> *Recommendations*
>
> Managing time
>
> - consider Iannello (1992) circular model (Figure 7)
> - distinguish routine from non-routine issues
> - entrust a group of members to make routine decisions on behalf of
> the organization and inform others
> - allow time to discuss controversial issues
> - create simple protocol, e.g. reply to email in 72 hours, flagging
> emails as urgent, setting specific timelines for tasks, phone colleagues if
> immediate responses are needed.
>
> Managing homogeneity
>
> - accept the benefits of having homogeneity
> - build space for autonomy within the organization
> - *create an environment where members feel safe and supported to
> express differences of opinion*
> - if possible, place few restrictions on new incoming members and
> reach out to populations your organization wants to include
> - at events, be welcoming to potential new members with sign-up lists
> and information/invitation cards
> - *allow for some diversity to encourage innovation and creativity in
> thinking*
>
> Managing emotional intensity
>
> - ensure all members agree with and understand the mission of the
> organization and how it will be carried out
> - allow the mission to guide decision making
> - get input from members individually when drafting proposals
> - describe and distribute controversial issues in a written form prior
> to a meeting to allow members to generate opinions
> - *use diplomacy when speaking to other members especially on
> sensitive issues; assess when it is critical for you to refrain to add to a
> conversation*
> - *postpone controversial decisions to allow time for members to
> digest the issues*
> - *check-in with members regularly and especially after emotionally
> intense situations*
>
>
> - encourage members to resolve conflicts quickly
> - minimize any opportunity for members to execute a personal agenda by
> insisting on collaborative mission-based decision making
> - employ a mediator is necessary
> - offer gratitude if appropriate
>
> Managing nondemocratic individuals
>
> - use an informal interview process to gage whether a potential new
> member is a right fit for the organization
> - ensure new members are fully aware of the mission, rules if any, and
> governance style of the organization to set expectations
> - new members should agree to the decision making processes of the
> organization; consider asking new members to sign a pledge to follow
> desired protocol
> - create distinct roles and allow nondemocratic individuals to have
> autonomy over their own project to alleviate tension
> - share leadership by rotating leadership-roles and roles of
> responsibility
> - ways to include a nondemocratic individual within the organization
> should be discussed together with the individual in a non-threatening
> manner, if a compromise is not possible, nondemocratic individuals who
> are disruptive and threatening the life of the organization should be
> discouraged from remaining with the organization
>
> Managing environmental constraints
>
> - *carefully examine the internal needs of the organization before any
> externally imposed conditions, i.e. ask what the organization needs before
> determining what the external environment requires it to have*
> - carefully gage the amount of legal recognition, professionalism, and
> external funding the organization requires
> - consider the need for liability insurance, bank account in the
> organization’s name, constitution and bylaws
> - consider the implications of accepting earmarked donations/grants
> - ensure there are sufficient volunteers and finances to manage the
> added legal responsibilities of having charitable status
>
> Managing
>
> individual differences
>
> - assess the needs and pros/cons of having distinct roles for members
> - practice reflective leadership within the organization either
> informally or formally, where members reflect on their role and influence
> within the organization
> - *members with pronounced influence should seek ways to minimize or
> disperse their influence*
> - if role distinction is necessary for practical purposes, stress
> members still work collaboratively as a collective. Attempt to create a
> culture where members remain on equal footing. Encourage transparency,
> information sharing, a climate of trust and acceptance, and environment of
> mutual support and facilitation.
> - *if possible, rotate roles so members learn and share different
> skills to avoid creating a hierarchy of knowledge*
> - consider discounting the senior officer roles, i.e. president and
> vice-president, required for the application for charitable status
>
> "
>
> Additional problems included the problem of consensus, however, *it was
> not at the top of the list. *Even though they seemed to be more
> "specific" to organizations like ours. Specificity to circumstance does not
> determine the impact problem. Again, you're dealing with a "people
> problem":
>
> "However, *the research found other challenges which could inhibit
> non-bureaucratic governance and are more specific to the circumstance of
> VNPO*s. These challenges include the lack of succession planning, *minimal
> recruitment*, unreliable task completion, *minimal socialization with the
> potential for disengagement*, *a pronounced pressure to achieve
> consensus, defining members and member rights, and establishing a reporting
> structure*,* bylaws and constitution reflective of their governance mode*l."
> (Pg. 81)
>
> Maybe we are focusing on the wrong thing here. But, on face, if you do
> kill consensus, I can see the losers of the non-consensus framework leaving
> noisebridge out of frustration. The political argument is winers-win and
> losers-lose, and that may be the new framework if there is no consensus
> framework. Now that may spark some sort of "spatial innovation", like
> adding lockers, or kicking out all the sleepers, but it would indeed kill
> the community as it is.
>
> There is a difference in world views.
>
>
> On 19 December 2013 10:26, jim <jim at well.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Great points! Kudos!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 08:56 -0800, bfb wrote:
>> > Al and Madelynn,
>> >
>> >
>> > Both in this thread and at the last meeting I have been overwhelmed
>> > with the sense that this will never become a dialog. It feels like an
>> > epic monolog that's bound to flame out.
>> >
>> >
>> > But let' try anyway...
>> >
>> >
>> > What I did say on Tuesday was that 1. I didn't know where to begin and
>> > 2. Quoted the first line from noisebridge.net "Noisebridge is an
>> > infrastructure provider for technical-creative projects,
>> > collaboratively run by our members." Which is to say, not only a space
>> > where collaboration happens, but a space collaboratively run by our
>> > members. Your proposal derides this statement in two ways. 1. Moving
>> > to a majoritarian system creates less opportunity for collaboration on
>> > decision making and 2. It hands over the process to a board of
>> > directors from the hands of the membership.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -------- Original message --------
>> > From: Al Sweigart
>> > Date:12/18/2013 19:06 (GMT-08:00)
>> > To: Rubin Abdi
>> > Cc: noisebridge-discuss
>> > Subject: Re: [Noisebridge-discuss] Keeping associate members in their
>> > place
>> >
>> > It's in the meeting
>> > notes: https://noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013_12_17
>> >
>> >
>> > Basically, Danny blocks because other people would block. Kevin blocks
>> > because Noisebridge is a collaborative space and majority voting would
>> > undo or impinge on that. I encourage them (or anyone else) to correct
>> > this description, but it's what I came away from the meeting with.
>> > (And, of course, if Danny and Kevin don't have time to reply to the
>> > list, that doesn't mean they implicitly agree with my description.)
>> >
>> >
>> > The "other people who would block" I can only take a guess at, and
>> > half of them aren't even living in SF anymore. If I try to read
>> > people's minds about this issue I'm going to fail; I'd rather have
>> > them chime in on the mailing list or show up at a meeting if they have
>> > strong feelings about this.
>> >
>> >
>> > -Al
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote:
>> > Al Sweigart wrote, On 2013-12-18 18:44:
>> > > The most common tactic in Noisebridge politics is to get
>> > people to stop
>> > > speaking up about issues.
>> >
>> >
>> > Then that sounds like an entirely different issue that needs
>> > attention.
>> > Don't cut off the finger when all that is needed is a bandage.
>> >
>> > If I were you I would call out those members.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Rubin
>> > rubin at starset.net
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131219/4f207e92/attachment-0003.html>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss
mailing list