[Noisebridge-discuss] Let's talk about: Noisebridge Membership

Adrian Chadd adrian.chadd at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 21:00:56 UTC 2014


Grah!

There's no guardians of the consensus process. That's .. the whole point.

The whole point of consensus is that everyone is supposed to work
together towards a common goal. They're supposed to make compromises.
They're supposed to act in good faith. They're supposed to make things
take the appropriate amount of time and not rush things.

But it's easily derailed by people who don't wish to bend from their stance.

If there's no immediate threat to the status quo, there's no pressure
to try and come to some or any agreement to move things forward. I
think having no real pressure from things like "the cops are about to
make things unpleasant if we don't fix the (perceived or not
perceived) drug problem" or "someone's deciding to sue us because
we're not meeting duty of care requirements". From my understanding
there's no immediate threat to being unable to pay the lease and
no-one has been stabbed recently. For the most part the issues being
discussed can be mostly ignored by a non-insignificant group of people
who I've met at NB because it doesn't apply to them.

That's why I'm hesitant of the whole idea of consensus as being
broadly applicable. It requires a lot more good faith than I see going
on in many groups here. There are other groups (eg my experiences with
Sudo) where consensus works out, but it works there because there's
no-one I've met who seems to really take a contrary position and stall
things. Everyone seems to get along and mostly be aligned to the same
set of goals.

I could talk more, but I have actual open source code to debug and fix
and publish.



-a


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list