[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight
rachel at xtreme.com
Wed Feb 26 20:54:22 UTC 2014
Right, it's easy to see how to avoid the situation now. And I doubt
that specific failure will happen again!
Any time there are rules, there will be edge cases where conforming to
the letter of a rule breaks the spirit of the rule. If it is generally
agreed that spirit breakage is a problem, the usual solution is to make
another rule to handle the edge case. And then another rule for the
edge case that the second rule missed, and so on. See, for example, our
US legal system!
Maybe it's OK to have some bad "consensus" items? Getting to consensus
was harder and took a lot longer when there was no rule about How, I do
recall. People got tired of it and checked out. That is obviously
still happening, but maybe it is happening less?
Ron, do you think it is a problem that so many people are objecting to
this consensus item after the fact? I kinda hear "tough shit"
underneath your responses, have you got something better to offer? I
don't have a better idea myself so maybe I should just shut up.
On 2/26/14 12:20 PM, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
> I agree but for noisebridge to work right and for this to have not
> happened. It is simple. Be more involved. Communicate more. Made
> sure someone would be there. It is hard but with a community like this
> it requires massive efforts and slacking a bit puts us in this situation.
> On Feb 26, 2014 11:52 AM, "Rachel McConnell" <rachel at xtreme.com
> <mailto:rachel at xtreme.com>> wrote:
> OK about a consensus item that passed, as Lee's ban did, without the
> full agreement of the membership - as this obviously did. How does
> it get un-done by consensus? The don't-ban-Lee faction screwed up;
> fair enough; there were Reasons but whatever. But now that it's on
> the books, it can't be removed except also by consensus, and the
> do-ban-Lee faction can just be more careful about coming to the
> meetings to block the un-ban.
> If the point of consensus decision making is for everyone to agree -
> at least enough to accept a solution, even if they don't really like
> it - you cannot say that consensus has succeeded here. The process
> happened, but consensus (the dictionary use, as opposed to the
> Noisebridge-specific jargon use) does not actually exist.
> Al, Ron, Tom, Jake A, everyone: what is your thinking on this?
> Imagine, if you will, that it was Al who got banned, and through a
> fluke, everyone who would otherwise have blocked it had something
> else they needed to do that night, and each knew that everyone else
> would block so it wasn't vital that they, personally, were there.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.__noisebridge.net
> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss