[Noisebridge-discuss] better tech for making decisions

Naomi Most pnaomi at gmail.com
Thu Apr 3 18:59:10 UTC 2014

Well, I am trying to put faith in the community to be more like a
community and less like an "Us versus Them" situation.

I don't want to design solutions predicated on the existing problems.
I want to design solutions that assume the best about the potential of
the humans of Noisebridge while keeping the lessons of the past in

To put it metaphorically:

If you're looking for a good place to sit, don't add lumbar support to
a table.  Design a chair.


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Xavier Aubuchon-Mendoza
<xavieram at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You're right, the "secure" part wasn't mentioned.  I added that in.
>> The reason I thought to add that in was because I felt it was a value
>> most at Noisebridge would share.  But you're right that it doesn't
>> accurately represent the conversation.
> Oh, absolutely. Security is important, I just don't see how in this case
> it's compatible with the other values of openness and inclusiveness in
> decision-making.
>> I agree with almost everything else you've written, and I'm the
>> biggest proponent of people meeting in person in the space whenever
>> possible.  I'm just worried about those times when that's not
>> possible.
> I understand that, and I know that reasonable cases do come up where
> somebody with a strong position on the matter simply cannot make it. While
> the Proxy system clearly has flaws, I'm unsure how to change that without
> creating the opportunity for the very same trolls on the discuss list being
> able to just electronically block all proposals.
> That's why I'm such a strong proponent for in person democracy. People will
> happily spew hate to a screen and watch systems collapse. However, people
> are much less willing to make a trip in person, be hated in person and then
> watch the consequences of their actions destroy the space they are in. Also,
> technological systems are easy to subvert. What would happen when somebody
> claims their "I block!" button didn't work, and so the last proposal was
> invalid?
>> Maybe I shouldn't worry so much? Maybe when there are Working Groups,
>> the meetings will be less burdened, and therefore more productive?
> I'm not familiar with this working group thing?
>> But one thing I do want to try is having more reasoned discussions
>> ahead of the meetings.  Technology helps a lot with that, since I have
>> no guarantees of when I or anyone else will happen to be in the space
>> AND want to talk rather than hack.
> I concur absolutely!
>  -Xavier

Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com

skype: nthmost


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list