[Noisebridge-discuss] catching up with "what's wrong with discussing things at the Tuesday meeting"

Johny Radio johnyradio at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 20:26:59 UTC 2014

------ Original Message ------
From: "Al Sweigart" <asweigart at gmail.com>
>Hey Johny, my concern with that proposal is that instead of one large 
>group of people arguing with each other, it will be several small 
>groups of people arguing within the group

how? You don't KNOW that, because it has not been tried. Why will small 
groups argue within themselves?

Not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that electronics hackers at 
NB should not form an electronics special interest group? How is my 
suggestion different than Naomi's working groups?

There are many reasons consensus is currently broken, like clogging it 
up with every issue, every activity, every conflict.  People argue at NB 
meetings now, because they are usually not talking about concrete 
hacking needs-- it's all drama. That drama would be offloaded to the 
banning/mediation/grievance group.

Most electronics hackers at noisebridge are tight with each other. We 
support each other. We're friends and allies. our needs are the same. I 
do believe decentralized decision-making can be highly effective. Just 
because Noisebridge has failed at making it work does not mean it's 

>There's no clear way to handle when decisions affect more than one 
>group or even which groups they affect.

Issues concerning the electronics workbench are clearly of concern to 
the electronics group, no? An electronics working group would make 
decisions about electronics. How is that complicated?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20140327/463df7d2/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list