[Noisebridge-discuss] a couple of things from the meeting today, on consensus and time

Danny O'Brien danny at spesh.com
Wed Jan 8 07:03:38 UTC 2014

Man, Noisebridge I just cannot quit you. Just when i become all sad in
noisebridge-discuss, I mope into the place and it's full of
interesting and diverse people, and we have a mostly nice meeting
which is a mix of people reminiscing about PDP11s, examining bay area
stream currents, and someone Torifying themselves in a balaclava to
contribute entirely anonymously. Thank you for your conversation, "X"!

We started to talk about the proposal to abandon consensus. However
this plays out, it's going to be a long discussion, and it's already
proving faskinating. I worry sometimes that even with notes, our
conversations between meetings tend to end up resetting from zero
every time, so I wanted to convey some of what we talked about:

There was (as often is the case) much less of a hard line between "no
consensus" and "yay consensus" folks, and a strong feeling that
experimentation would be good.

One idea that a lot of people liked was a combination of consensus +
supermajority -- which is to say that we would aim for consensus, but
(one block/two blocks/something) could be overcome with a
supermajority of some sort.

I'd be interested in hearing people positively kick around ideas like
this, and how they might work. We've already had one person propose
arithmetical progression blocking (where one block can be unblocked by
two blocks, and three blocks can reblock two unblocks, and so on).

Noisebridge already leads the way in crazy impossible-to-explain
process, so I think we would be following in a fine tradition if we
came up with a really convoluted system that strangely works. One day
there will be whole galaxies of people using the
Praveen-Sweigart-Consenso-Hawking decisionmaking process.

Also, meetings start at 7 now. Please to reset your watches!

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list