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

[Hannah Grimm]

Yes, but you avoid the "tyranny of the lone jackass and his one friend."


On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Jessica Ross <jessica.r.ross at gmail.com>wrote:

> Don't you still get the Tyranny of the Majority problem with n-2?
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd be in favor of tweaking consensus into an n-2 system, or of going to
>> a democracy.  I think either one would be a step forward for the space.
>>
>> I think that fundamentally most of the people here want very similar
>> things, and that maybe if we could all stop screaming at each other,
>> assuming the worst, accusing people of being literally Hitler, calling each
>> other feds, etc. we might actually be able to get things done.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> (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
>>> +1-415-728-7490
>>>
>>> skype: nthmost
>>>
>>> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jessica R. Ross
> jessica.r.ross at gmail.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140328/a78f8342/attachment.html>