[Noisebridge-discuss] a couple of things from the meeting today, on consensus and time
danny at spesh.com
Wed Jan 8 07:28:20 UTC 2014
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd at gmail.com> wrote:
> Did anyone propose the idea of "non-consensus puts a time limit on anything."
> And "maybe put a time limit on everything, so the rules have to be
> revoted in periodically."
> eg: 12 months for things that are agreed upon with consensus, 6 months
> for things that have one consensus blocker, 3 months for things that
> have >1 consensus blocker.
> What do people think?
I think people would still want the block to be the nuclear option --
but there's something in making time limits that people like -- we
often put them into any proposal (partly because if you don't, someone
could always block an attempt to revoke).
It would be a good embodiment of the idea that rules should be
exceptional, not the... um...rule. And of course, it would be like
that thing in medieval iceland where the only laws that last past a
year are the ones that the person in charge of memorising the laws
remembers to recite. And anything that is like medieval iceland
pleases the crypto-anarchists!
I think it was Ari who said in the meeting that given tradition,
consensus should have some place at Noisebridge, whatever we do.
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss