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

[Gregory Dillon]

Great point Naomi.  Thanks.

Maybe a small step, would be to the change that the consensus history page
must says who blocks, not just that it was blocked.  Sometimes that is done
now, sometimes it isn't.

Making the name of the person who blocked easily available should both
enable discussion when its a good block, and shame when its a bad block.
 There is conventional wisdom that certain people are doing much of the
 blocking, but it could be good to see if the data is really there for that.





On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:

> The ideal of consensus functions very well in situations where
> individuals actually give a shit about what the community thinks of
> them.
>
> The people who tend to block "for no reason", or to try to prolong an
> antisocial activity they're already doing (like sleeping at the
> space), they do so because they have nothing to lose.
>
> At its core, Consensus is a functionality constructed around the
> concept that there's shame in blocking for no reason, or for appearing
> to be intransigent.
>
> When the intransigent and the transient collide...
>
> --Naomi
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Dana <dana-lists at sonic.net> wrote:
> > Al, I appreciate you laying out your thought process on this. I wish a
> > conversation about how Noisebridge can move forward could have started
> from
> > here instead of from unilateral actions on the part of the board.
> >
> > What is called consensus at Noisebridge is broken, I think many Members
> and
> > community members agree. When I learned about consensus I was told
> blocking
> > was something serious and rare, reserved for circumstances when you
> > fundamentally believe a proposal undermines the integrity of an
> > organization's values or there is improper process. If you don't like
> > something you articulate your objection, dissent with a stand-aside.
> >
> > In January I shared alternative consensus model we used at student
> co-ops.
> > At the meeting, on-list and privately I received an exceptional amount of
> > positive feedback (then, I got busy and did a poor job at following up).
> I
> > don't think end-point but another option worth working from:
> >
> > Weekly meetings - 1 block or Math.round(Members*.1) stand-asides stop a
> > proposal. Those blocking have a responsibility to try to work with
> > proponents towards something mutually agreeable (outside of the meeting)
> >
> > If an issue can't be resolved it can be brought up at a quarterly
> membership
> > meeting where it goes to majority or super-majority:
> >
> >
> https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2014-January/041803.html
> >
> > - dana
> >
> > p.s. Running something at the intersection of hacker culture & public
> space,
> > with a funny decision-making model, in a city under a lot of social and
> > economic pressures is not easy. I think it's ENTIRELY REASONABLE to just
> > want to hack without all that, a more 'normal' model would thrive in this
> > city too, maybe even eclipse NB in popularity or equipment or technical
> > accomplishment (oh, what I'd give for a nice laser cutter that wasn't
> (a) at
> > Tech Shop, (b) in the East Bay, but I digress).
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>



-- 
Let's stay in touch.  Greg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140328/bc7ef583/attachment.html>