[Noisebridge-discuss] catching up with "what's wrong with discussing things at the Tuesday meeting"
asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 05:51:21 UTC 2014
I think a lot of people who sit through the frustrating, lengthy, and often
vitriolic weekly meetings would agree that much more would be needed to
improve the policy process than just a "minus 1" or "minus 2" addendum. And
even for that much, I haven't seen any proposal for such a change to
consensus ever come from the folks who are pro-consensus.
But coming up with policy and process is work, and boring work to boot.
It's easy to put off when the "people just need to be excellent and
consensus will work" placebo is available.
If there are some practical process suggestions for how to conduct meetings
and decision making (not just abstract guidelines or ideaology) that would
improve Noisebridge, I'm all ears.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:36 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
<rachelyra at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss