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

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 19:55:27 UTC 2014

Hey Johny, my concern with that proposal is that instead of one large group
of people arguing with each other, it will be several small groups of
people arguing within the group and with other groups. There's no clear way
to handle when decisions affect more than one group or even which groups
they affect. I think a lot of things would turn into "this affects
everyone" decisions, and then we're back to consensus again.

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Johny Radio <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:

>  off-load more decisions to interest groups and special-purpose teams.
>>  ....
>> Each group and team elects or appoints a representative for transparent
>> but small org-wide meetings.
> With this arrangement, even org-wide meetings could operate by consensus--
> because it would be a small group.
> (i suggest this as a long-time opponent of consensus)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140327/2ae50970/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list