[Noisebridge-discuss] All I want is 51% :)

Naomi Most pnaomi at gmail.com
Fri Mar 28 19:54:02 UTC 2014

People in favor of Consensus have also suggested "consensus minus 1"
and "consensus minus 2".  No one is saying the problems you're saying
aren't problems.

My core issue with your stance that you seem to be "overengineering"
the solution, while overlooking the root causes of the disagreements
that lead to these decisions having to be made in the first place.

Furthermore, majority voting has many well-established problems.  The
term "tyranny of the majority" comes to mind.  Likewise, it is easier
-- and thus faster -- to pass legislation in that structure.

Is rapid legislation something Noisebridge wants / should have?  I
would argue not.

No, what Noisebridge needs are rapidly functioning systems to handle
/specific/ recurring problems:

* sleeping at the space
* drug use at the space
* harassment within the community
* making sure stuff get fixed / replaced / maintained
* controlling access to the space as needed.

Can you name any other problems?  (I'm honestly trying to make a
comprehensive list here.)

Now, can you name any voting, democratic body whose job it is to
decide on the fate of errant individuals?

We have branches of government for the above problems in the United
States, and they are not legislative.  And hey, look at that: the
court system makes judgements on individuals by consensus.

...All except the Supreme Court, that is.  I'd be more for Noisebridge
having a Supreme Court than I would care to move NB to a general
"everything goes to majority vote" scenario.


On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> Really, I just want the membership to be able to pass/block things based on
> majority vote. If we got that, there'd be no need for me to be on the board
> and I'd resign. All the other stuff in those proposals from the board I'm
> either neutral about or don't think they were deal-breakers.
> It's not that all of Noisebridge's problems would be solved if we got rid of
> consensus, it's that all of Noisebridge's problems would become _solvable_.
> Consensus is what lets a single person walk in to a meeting an hour or two
> late and block something that would have otherwise passed. Talk about what
> "true" consensus is supposed to be, but this is what it is in practice and
> has been for the last five years. My thoughts have been that most members
> are against things like people sleeping and living at the space, but they've
> been kept from fixing those problems because it only takes one person to
> veto any changes.
> But if a majority of people (even at this point, when a lot of people have
> left NB or are staying away (see also, Double Union)) wanted things like
> sleep hacking and consensus, I'd just agree to disagree but acknowledge that
> that is what Noisebridge wants.
> -Al
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com

skype: nthmost


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list