[Noisebridge-discuss] All I want is 51% :)
nejucomo at gmail.com
Sat Mar 29 23:51:23 UTC 2014
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 6:12 PM, openfly
<openfly at xn--kgbed8a0h.xn--ngbc5azd> wrote:
> Everything you said, is in point of fact by definition of consensus on wikipedia,
> and every dictionary i could find, including the venerable oxford english
> dictionary... False.
> So... there's that.
I am uncertain about what your purpose, goal, or proposal is.
Are you unclear on Henner Zeller's description of consensus? From
what I gather, that description is roughly what everyone around here
means by "consensus". If you are unclear about that, please ask a
The dismissive hyperbole "by all definitions of consensus in existence
on earth" neglects the fact that almost everyone you are talking to
(most of whom are on Earth) is using a definition of consensus thereby
contradicting your claim.
I was mildly amused to read "So... there's that"... so... there's that.
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 04:47:47PM -0700, Henner Zeller wrote:
>> On 28 March 2014 16:37, openfly <openfly at xn--kgbed8a0h.xn--ngbc5azd> wrote:
>> > FTR by all definitions of consensus in existence on earth, majority vote
>> > IS consensus.
>> Consensus in the decision-making-sense is well defined and essentially
>> the right to veto or everyone silently agreeing.
>> If there are n people in the room and consent on something they might
>> either violently agree or not care, which passes consensus.
>> If there is only one person who disagrees enough to veto, then the
>> item is not accepted and need to be kept discussed.
>> Ideally, this reaches more stable communities, but it requires that
>> people actively give a shit about the well-being of the community.
>> This is vastly different from majority vote.
>> > so.... I am confused.
>> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:00:15PM -0700, Al Sweigart 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
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss