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

Naomi Most pnaomi at gmail.com
Fri Mar 28 20:06:47 UTC 2014

(correcting myself: alright, a few people are saying the problems you
want to solve aren't problems.)

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> --Naomi
> 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
> +1-415-728-7490
> skype: nthmost
> http://twitter.com/nthmost

Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com

skype: nthmost


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list