[Noisebridge-discuss] "Banning" discussion tonight
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!
> 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.
> 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.
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.__noisebridge.net
>> <mailto:Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss