[Noisebridge-discuss] Why Consensus Kills Community
orenbeck at gmail.com
Mon Dec 16 14:23:30 UTC 2013
Tom- I am suggesting you re-read yourself and take it as directed at you
from someone else on any day before you achieved membership. See- you've
described a situation that fails so many ways as to defy respect. It won't
foster cohesive dynamics- it seems by my take- doomed to foster cliques.
By your logic- we can stage a moment where a handful of folks can say as
you did that it's not a good place for YOU.
Do take a long contemplation of this as damned scary example of why NB has
become a Drama Nova. And make no mistake- the Drama has reduced a FOUNDING
HACKERSPACE to graffiti joke fodder...
I'm 51 years old- Been online so to speak since modems had rotary dials. I
went to the High School that I'm told had been Mitch Altman's grade
school:> All that said to prove points that online life elides into blur.
We don't "read" a person for their words in context either online or at a
meetiing absent Ad Hominem distortions. And frankly:
Saying that if the quorum @ hour X dislikes someone quite apart from "all
else" they should leave is damned not excellent! As it inherently fosters
a climate of stupidly petty schisms over clique crap.
Were THAT criteria applied to you by the list....
Think about the implications. For ANY of us so treated.. Sometimes we're
too close or too far from a dynamic to see it in context. From the balanced
perspectives it gets clearer.
Teal Deer: Excluding someone if they've not done any harm= Pure FAIL for
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Tom Lowenthal <me at tomlowenthal.com> wrote:
> John Shutt <john.d.shutt at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Long story short: A strict interpretation of the associate membership and
> > doorcode policies would result in all of the members of the book scanning
> > group and Restore the 4th SF getting immediately locked out of the space.
> Hi John, I want to take a moment to jump into this thread and disagree
> with you. Sorry about that.
> A “strict interpretation” of the associate membership policy would ask
> that you introduce yourself to someone in the space and tell them that
> you're working on the awesome book scanner project. If any one member
> there agrees that you're working on a great project and that they want
> you there, you're golden.
> Only if not a single member there is down with what you're working on
> would you'd have to leave. Honestly: policy or no policy, if you go
> somewhere to work and **not a single person** there is happy with you
> being there, it'd probably be a good plan to find somewhere else to
> I think that's pretty different from what you described. The goal of
> associate membership is to knit the Noisebridge community together
> more tightly and allow for more accountability for what happens in the
> space. If that's too much overhead for you, I guess Noisebridge isn't
> a good place for you to work.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss