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

[rachel lyra hospodar]

A broad reaching yet minimalist approach to solving this very specific and
real problem might be trying out a consensus minus 1 or minus 2 model.

As opposed to majority vote within a secret cabal which is the ultra
opposite of consensus.

Just saying.
On Mar 26, 2014 7:13 PM, "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140326/1e33e644/attachment.html>