[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight
setient at gmail.com
Wed Feb 26 20:20:50 UTC 2014
I agree but for noisebridge to work right and for this to have not
happened. It is simple. Be more involved. Communicate more. Made sure
someone would be there. It is hard but with a community like this it
requires massive efforts and slacking a bit puts us in this situation.
On Feb 26, 2014 11:52 AM, "Rachel McConnell" <rachel at xtreme.com> wrote:
> OK about a consensus item that passed, as Lee's ban did, without the full
> agreement of the membership - as this obviously did. How does it get
> un-done by consensus? The don't-ban-Lee faction screwed up; fair enough;
> there were Reasons but whatever. But now that it's on the books, it can't
> be removed except also by consensus, and the do-ban-Lee faction can just be
> more careful about coming to the meetings to block the un-ban.
> If the point of consensus decision making is for everyone to agree - at
> least enough to accept a solution, even if they don't really like it - you
> cannot say that consensus has succeeded here. The process happened, but
> consensus (the dictionary use, as opposed to the Noisebridge-specific
> jargon use) does not actually exist.
> Al, Ron, Tom, Jake A, everyone: what is your thinking on this? Imagine,
> if you will, that it was Al who got banned, and through a fluke, everyone
> who would otherwise have blocked it had something else they needed to do
> that night, and each knew that everyone else would block so it wasn't vital
> that they, personally, were there.
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss