[Noisebridge-discuss] Why Consensus Kills Community
adrian.chadd at gmail.com
Sat Dec 14 19:10:12 UTC 2013
On 14 December 2013 11:01, Mike Schachter <cubicgoats at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Madelynn, I appreciate your post.
> When the associate member thing came around, I had to make a decision
> whether to try to become an associate member or capital-M member. I attended
> a Tuesday meeting, and Hillaire was up for captial-M membership.
> I was very surprised and disappointed to see him, or really anyone else,
> rejected! It really turned me off to Noisebridge's entire membership
> structure, and made me want to do the absolute minimum to be "accepted" into
> a community which I've participated in for years.
> It doesn't make sense to me for new members to be accepted by consensus.
> There is obviously a conflict-of-interest in the case where there are
> opposing viewpoints between an existing member and a new one, and that keeps
> Noisebridge's membership structure from being inclusive.
And I've been to a couple of Tuesday night meetings where the
inclusiveness ended up with some very .. odd and counter-productive
arguments. There's such a diversity of people that seem to show up to
Noisebridge and pull it in a variety of directions that may arguably
be good for the space as a whole.
It swings multiple ways.
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss