[Noisebridge-discuss] Keeping associate members in their place

[Ronald Cotoni]

Danny, strangely I think by contacting the mailing list, he has effectively
reached out to all members at once.  If they choose to not read this list,
which does contain important noisebridge related information from time to
time, that is their problem.  He is just asking about the consenso process
and who is for it.

If the membership thinks that the list is useless (because of all the crap
that goes on it), perhaps we should make the list useful.  Or maybe Al
should post it to announce instead since it is a major proposal.


On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:

> To clarify, the questions I had were intended for the thread at large, not
> specifically at Danny. I'd like to hear other people's replies on this
> thread.
>
> Danny, I'll reply to you off-list (we've probably been dominating this
> thread. My emails have been at least).
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > DANNY, I AM BEING UPFRONT AND DIRECT WITH YOU. I'm not feigning
>> ignorance or
>> > whatever bad faith stance you're implying I have: I do "kinda-sorta"
>> have an
>> > idea what people's arguments for and against are. But I don't *know*
>> what
>> > people exactly think about replacing consensus with majority voting. I
>> > assumed Leif was alright with overnight sleepers a week back, and he
>> said I
>> > was dead wrong about that. I can guess he's in strongly in favor of
>> > consensus exactly as it is currently, but at this point I want to avoid
>> > assuming and would rather people state their views on this; THEN I have
>> > something to work with.
>> >
>>
>> I know! It's just a little hard to believe![1] We're in a vim and
>> emacs battle here, and I admit that, as a de facto representative of
>> an entire (and somewhat obscure) body of thought, it can be hard to
>> convey that. It's also okay -- I spend my day job (which I will VERY
>> SHORTLY RETURN TO, people reading this at work!) explaining why the
>> perfectly reasonable and commonplace institution of copyright has
>> flaws, why filtering obscene content is problematic, why patents don't
>> improve innovation, and why anonymity is a good thing. I'm not unused
>> to explaining ideas that half the world thinks are insane, and the
>> other half view as uncontroversial truths.
>>
>> [1] Note that -- and I was perhaps not as clear as I should have been
>> -- I was saying that while I am frustrated enough to think you are
>> acting in bad faith, assuming so would be to falling victim to the
>> same bad behavior as I am accusing you of. So I won't do that.
>>
>> > Otherwise, I'm fishing in the dark, I'm going to miss people, and have
>> to
>> > deal with other people accusing me of working on bad faith by skipping
>> over
>> > them or by making straw man arguments because I'm not addressing the
>> reasons
>> > they actually have.
>> >
>> > Once again, I completely welcome and would appreciate people who are in
>> > favor of consensus to make their viewpoints known. Discussing this, on
>> the
>> > list and in person, is how we can resolve things. Are you in favor of
>> > consensus? Are you in favor of replacing consensus with majority vote?
>> > Simple or clear majority? If not majority vote, are there changes to
>> > consensus you're more agreeable with?
>>
>> So, as a quick exercise, maybe you could re-read my previous messages,
>> and extrapolate from those what I think? You've been doing pretty good
>> at that,beyond the assumption that I and Kevin decided to block you
>> (which we didn't) based on us wanting to snatch power away from
>> everyone else.
>>
>> And as I said, I'd like to give some recorded talks about this at
>> Noisebridge. It's a format that I like, it means that I don't have to
>> repeat myself so many times, we can draw in input from others, and
>> even if we switch to majorities, it'll be a useful historical record.
>> Woohoo Federalist papers!
>>
>> >
>> > (Kevin, I still owe you that off-line email, but I think I can make it
>> to
>> > the space this evening after all.)
>> >
>> > -Al
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > Danny, when I ran for board I brought up modifying/replacing our
>> >> > consensus
>> >> > process, but no one else chimed in on that topic:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2011-January/020091.html
>> >> > (I didn't follow up on that either in the following months; other NB
>> >> > stuff
>> >> > came up.) And the issue of replacing consensus with majority voting
>> >> > hasn't
>> >> > come up very often after that (I've done enough trawling through the
>> >> > mailing
>> >> > list archive for today.)
>> >> >
>> >> > There was a huge thread on consensus before that in 2009, which I
>> hadn't
>> >> > commented on (it was before I followed the mailing list much):
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2009-October/008547.html
>> >> >
>> >> > But this is all ancient history on Noisebridge's timeline. Almost no
>> one
>> >> > on
>> >> > those threads hacks at the space anymore.
>> >> >
>> >> > Here's an idea: Instead of me jumping through hoops to find people
>> who
>> >> > disagree with making changes at Noisebridge, why don't those people
>> pay
>> >> > attention to the mailing list, meeting notes, or Consensus Items wiki
>> >> > page
>> >> > and then make their own views known on the list or at a meeting?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You're asking for a fairly major and fundamental change; part of
>> >> getting that to work is to positively engage with everyone. Whatever
>> >> system you're in, if you're pushing for change, it falls on you to try
>> >> and engage with others. Sorry!
>> >>
>> >> Maybe I have been soaked in discussion of the pros and cons of
>> >> consensus for too long, but I do sort of think that you actually know
>> >> a lot of these arguments, but you're adopting a kind of rhetorical
>> >> stance of ignorance to try and bait people to debate you within your
>> >> own framing. To say that is really to adopt the same stance as I'm
>> >> criticising, which is to imply bad faith on your opponents.
>> >>
>> >> Given that you're somewhat pulling me back into doing Noisebridgian
>> >> stuff (uhh thanks i guess), I am tempted to do a bunch of talks on
>> >> Noisebridge process and thinking. At the very least, it would be fun
>> >> to go over the lessons of the last few years and codify them, and I
>> >> think it will help disabuse ideas like consensus is a powergrab by
>> >> members...
>> >>
>> >> d.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > So far, I have Kevin as being against replacing consensus (side note:
>> >> > Kevin,
>> >> > I'll follow up on our off-list emails, I think a lot of this is a
>> >> > misunderstanding that I can clarify my aims) and you down as
>> >> > "christ-I-don't-know-maybe". I'll work with Kevin on this, but I'm
>> not a
>> >> > mind reader. The best I can do is go on the list and at the meetings
>> and
>> >> > ask, "Who has a problem with this and what are those problems?"
>> >> >
>> >> > -Al
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Every other time I've proposed this? I've never proposed this
>> before,
>> >> >> > Danny.
>> >> >> > And checking the Consensus Items History wiki page which goes back
>> >> >> > three
>> >> >> > years, no one else has either.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You got me! I sort of meant more "proposed" in the sense of talking
>> a
>> >> >> lot about how consensus is the death knell of Noisebridge.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You also stood for the board on the platform that you thought the
>> >> >> board should do things (as opposed to the default board position,
>> >> >> which is to cede its power to the meeting's consensus). I have
>> always
>> >> >> seen you as the main proponent of solutions to Noisebridge that
>> >> >> involve doing everything the way everyone else does it. i hope
>> that's
>> >> >> flattering rather than damning.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > People have been grumbling about consensus for a long time, but no
>> >> >> > one
>> >> >> > has
>> >> >> > ever actually brought up the issue.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I did write one email to you and Mitch and couple others like two
>> >> >> > years
>> >> >> > ago
>> >> >> > about this, and you replied that you didn't think getting rid of
>> >> >> > consensus
>> >> >> > would solve any of Noisebridge's problem.
>> >> >> > Actually, I'm still unsure what
>> >> >> > your position on this is to begin with: Would you yourself block
>> >> >> > replacing
>> >> >> > consensus with majority voting?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Christ, I don't know. Maybe? Like I said earlier, I'd rather
>> >> >> Noisebridge try some other radical experimental system instead of
>> just
>> >> >> doing what everybody else does. I'd rather we had some mad condorcet
>> >> >> voting system tied to liquid democracy with a future's market
>> >> >> denominated in bitcoins than Robert's Rules of Order. My interest in
>> >> >> Noisebridge is to hack on interesting things, and that includes its
>> >> >> operational structure.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> One of the things I like about Noisebridge's current set-up is that
>> it
>> >> >> attracts all the political dweebs like me and Tom and you and Johny
>> >> >> Radio, who would otherwise potentially turn it into some sort of of
>> >> >> high-school debating society, and ties them so much in
>> consensus-based
>> >> >> knots that they can't get anything rule-based done  apart from honk
>> on
>> >> >> to each other at Meeting -- in theory leaving everyone else to just
>> >> >> hack, and maintain the place. The *theory* is that this encourages
>> >> >> everyone else (like to do-acractically do whatever they want,
>> without
>> >> >> suddenly the political dweebs coming down from on high and going
>> "uhh
>> >> >> excuse me I don't think you've filled in the lasercutting chit form
>> >> >> 32ZB! Membership demerit point!"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think people like Jim and Maestro would say that our current
>> system
>> >> >> hasn't really been effective enough at preventing that from
>> happening,
>> >> >> so I don't know. I don't see your current proposal as fixing *that*
>> >> >> problem, or even seeing it as a problem, opening up the risk that
>>  you
>> >> >> would end up with the election of the board going to a bunch of
>> >> >> political dweebs who would also be too asocially dysfunctional to
>> >> >> *not* put in a bunch of overarching rules, but maybe I'm wrong about
>> >> >> that. I also note that every time we've set up anything like a power
>> >> >> structure like the redshirts or the rooster brigade, the creepy
>> people
>> >> >> that everyone else is freaked by make an absolute beeline for it,
>> and
>> >> >> I'm a little worried about that too. The intersection of "people who
>> >> >> like alternative hackerspaces" and "people who think they might be
>> >> >> quite good at running things" seems me much more full of
>> >> >> organizational incompetence and creepiness than in other sectors.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Again I guess I would prefer to experiment with something more
>> >> >> hackerish before putting on our grown-up NGO trousers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Also, to be consistent with what I told you a million years ago, I
>> see
>> >> >> fixing consensus as being a distraction from the main challenge,
>> which
>> >> >> is shifting the present culture from being a dark mildly smelly room
>> >> >> full of slightly shifty looking unshaven young men reading youtube
>> >> >> between naps and stealing copper, to a laughing clean space cubicle
>> >> >> full of people riding robot unicorns showing each other the wonders
>> of
>> >> >> the 21st century.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In conclusion, as I said in the meeting, I would not be the last
>> >> >> holdout on a consensus proposal to remove consensus. That therefore
>> >> >> makes my opinion, like everyone apart from the voter who shifts a
>> >> >> majority, rather irrelevant. It's other people you have to convince.
>> >> >> (And I do mean convince, as opposed to "write them an email saying
>> BUT
>> >> >> WILL YOU BLOCK" and then bemoaning their intransigence when they say
>> >> >> yes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> d.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Al Sweigart <
>> asweigart at gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > 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.)
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Al, I didn't block. It's the first week. You can't block then.
>> >> >> >> You're
>> >> >> >> just supposed to mull things around a bit, and chew a hay stalk
>> >> >> >> while
>> >> >> >> you do so. I am, however, allowed to express my opinion that this
>> >> >> >> would not go anywhere. I may be wrong.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > 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.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Maybe a good way of finding out people's feelings is by going
>> >> >> >> through
>> >> >> >> the mailing list and reading people's replies every other time
>> >> >> >> you've
>> >> >> >> proposed this?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> d.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > -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
>
>


-- 
Ronald Cotoni
Systems Engineer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131219/d1031469/attachment-0003.html>