[Noisebridge-discuss] Tor consensus item

Al Sweigart asweigart at gmail.com
Tue Jul 26 15:33:43 PDT 2011


A 3 or 6 month sunset provision would be fine. Either would be fine by me.

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Danny O'Brien <danny at spesh.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I can't make it to the meeting tonight, but I have an addition to the
>> Tor consensus item I'd like to make.
>>
>
> Okay, firstly, I really want to emphasise that if people have an issue
> with a particular consensus proposal please, please talk to the people
> making the proposal directly earlier than the day it is up. One of the
> reasons why meetings can go on a long time is that people  announce on
> the same day some position, and then expect the entire brunt of the
> negotiation is going to take place on that situation in situ during
> the meeting. That sort of thing doesn't happen in 99% of any organized
> group, despite the appearance of "Mr Smith goes to Washington", and
> it's not really going to work here. This goes double if you're not
> actually going to be at the meeting.
>
>> I think Tor is something that Noisebridge should back, and personally
>> I'm in favor of it. But the nature of the Tor project is that there
>> are several things that could go wrong that we can't really predict,
>> and there are people who are passionately in favor of the project. The
>> problem I see is that if Something Should Go Wrong, I'd like
>> Noisebridge to be able to dissolve backing the Tor project by a
>> majority vote rather than through consensus. One passionate and
>> obstinate person could block Noisebridge from untangling itself from a
>> relationship that everyone else agrees has turned poisonous.
>>
>> I really don't think this is likely, but I don't think it's impossible.
>>
>> Again, I'm in favor of NB putting its name behind Tor. But I would
>> have to block any consensus item that doesn't allow NB to withdraw its
>> support through a majority vote of the members. It simply takes too
>> much power from the membership.
>>
>
> I'm uncomfortable with bolting on majoritarianism onto a consensus
> item. It seems to come with too much baggage.
>
> Nonetheless, your concern over actually how to undo an agreement is
> fair. With the recent cleaning consensus, we agreed a temporary period
> which would require additional consensus to continue. Would either a
> three or a six month sunset addition to the consensus item be
> satisfactory?
>
> d.
>
>> -Al
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>
>>
>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list