[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight

Naomi Most pnaomi at gmail.com
Wed Feb 26 21:01:49 UTC 2014

This! Thank you for chiming in, Rachel.

On Wednesday, February 26, 2014, Rachel McConnell <rachel at xtreme.com> wrote:

> Right, it's easy to see how to avoid the situation now.  And I doubt that
> specific failure will happen again!
> But:
> Any time there are rules, there will be edge cases where conforming to the
> letter of a rule breaks the spirit of the rule.  If it is generally agreed
> that spirit breakage is a problem, the usual solution is to make another
> rule to handle the edge case.  And then another rule for the edge case that
> the second rule missed, and so on.  See, for example, our US legal system!
> Maybe it's OK to have some bad "consensus" items?  Getting to consensus
> was harder and took a lot longer when there was no rule about How, I do
> recall.  People got tired of it and checked out.  That is obviously still
> happening, but maybe it is happening less?
> Ron, do you think it is a problem that so many people are objecting to
> this consensus item after the fact?  I kinda hear "tough shit" underneath
> your responses, have you got something better to offer?  I don't have a
> better idea myself so maybe I should just shut up.
> Rachel1.0
> On 2/26/14 12:20 PM, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
>> 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
>> <mailto: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.
>>     Rachel1.0
>>     _________________________________________________
>>     Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>     Noisebridge-discuss at lists.__noisebridge.net
>>     <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>>     https://www.noisebridge.net/__mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-__discuss
>>     <https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss>
>>  _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com

skype: nthmost

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140226/0bf66e46/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list