[Noisebridge-discuss] In Defense of Consensus

[Matthew Senate]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Johny Radio <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:

> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Matthew Senate" <mattsenate at gmail.com>
>
>  consensus can be modified
>>
>
> Yes!
>

(With community consent and good reasoning!) ;)


>
>
>  if the Noisebridge community spent some time figuring out some really
>> great and radical ways to make decisions more democratic and more
>> effective...
>>
>
> Yes!
>
> But, what does "effective" mean?
>

By making decisions more "effective", I mean hacks to more accurately
represent the interests and sentiments of the individual participants or
otherwise improve the process for all participants. Perhaps a more holistic
way to see this is "stakeholdership" or "ownership" where the community
participants feel a close connection to the decisions they come to, with
intention and gusto. Otherwise decisions can be hasty, rough around the
edges, and misfitting.

"Effective" is also contextual. One might say that moving to a 2/3 majority
vote is more "efficient" to pass proposals perhaps more quickly. I use
"efficient" versus "effective" here to emphasize the distinction. I
personally contend that efficiency and speed are not always the most
important aspect of a decision-making process and that the practice of
consensus can be a more effective practice than a majority vote system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140327/1f4e76d0/attachment-0003.html>