[Noisebridge-discuss] catching up with "what's wrong with discussing things at the Tuesday meeting"

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 05:12:36 UTC 2014

That's my point though: while in theory consensus is supposed to be more
inclusive, over the last five years it's more often been a way for one or
two people to use blocking as a nuclear option. This protects abusive
people and excludes others who feel unsafe at the space. (See also: the
overwhelming number of people joining Double Union who wouldn't touch
Noisebridge with a ten foot pole)

We've been hearing the "ah, but it's not the TRUE way of consensus" for
literally years. Maybe the reason we haven't found this utopian version of
consensus is because it doesn't exist.

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:01 PM, spinach williams <
spinach.williams at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 09:53:50 PM Al Sweigart wrote:
> > Moving to a more democratic system
> leaving consensus for majority vote isn't "more democratic" -- actually
> practicing consensus (as rachel has been pointing out hasn't been done in
> the
> space in quite some time), however, is.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140326/a81d58c1/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list