[Noisebridge-discuss] concensus

Naomi Most pnaomi at gmail.com
Thu Feb 27 01:43:13 UTC 2014


You seem to think "time to consensus" is a cost variable best minimized.

I'll give you a hint: it's not.


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Drew Smith <drew at riotnrrd.com> wrote:
> Whoops, reply to all, not just to Ronald,
>
> No, a democracy is when everyone gets an equal vote and the majority vote
> wins.
>
> In my stupid idea there's a randomized element where one person's vote is
> worth more than everyone else's. They are just as powerful towards pushing
> through things that would be otherwise blocked as they are towards blocking
> things that would be otherwise pushed through.
>
> I believe this would drastically cut down the time spent trying to achieve
> consensus, and if the matter were re-opened at another meeting, the
> likelihood of the same person having the "special vote" status would be
> quite low.
>
> It's also worth noting that many people on this list seem to be saying
> "consensus" when they actually mean "unanimity". Consensus, by definition,
> does not mean 100% agreement by everyone involved, but rather a general or
> majority agreement.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consensus
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus_defined
>
> Cheers,
> - Drew.
>
> --
> Drew Smith (mux) <drew at riotnrrd.com>, VA7DSX / VE0TF
> Encrypted e-mail preferred, public key at http://riotnrrd.com/pubkey.gpg
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Ronald Cotoni <setient at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's a democracy not consensus.  Any 1 member can block but that might
>> work.  Either way requires us to be more vigilant and present in the space.
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2014 1:51 PM, "Drew Smith" <drew at riotnrrd.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's a stupid idea I had:
>>>
>>> How about at each meeting, at the counting of attendees, all names of
>>> those in attendance go into a hat (ideally software). The total number of
>>> attendees is the variable N.
>>>
>>> One name is picked from the hat. That person is now special, and their
>>> votes on concensus items count for N/2 votes, rounded down.
>>>
>>> Concensus is declared when there are N votes for a concensus item.
>>>
>>> A functional example; say there are 22 people at the meeting. Dave's name
>>> is drawn at random, so he is worth 11 votes. He does not have enough power
>>> to push through something by himself, but he does have the power to override
>>> some blockers. A vote to ban someone comes up, and without Dave's vote the
>>> tally is 18 votes for the ban and 3 votes against - Dave's vote is worth 11
>>> votes, and he votes for the ban, so the final outcome is 29 votes for, 3
>>> against, with concensus declared at 22 votes.
>>>
>>> Thoughts? What about if the special person received N/3 votes? Some other
>>> number?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> - Drew.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Drew Smith (mux) <drew at riotnrrd.com>, VA7DSX / VE0TF
>>> Encrypted e-mail preferred, public key at http://riotnrrd.com/pubkey.gpg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> 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
+1-415-728-7490

skype: nthmost

http://twitter.com/nthmost


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list