[Noisebridge-discuss] catching up with "what's wrong with discussing things at the Tuesday meeting"
pnaomi at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 21:03:50 UTC 2014
And that factionalism *certainly* won't happen when we start doing
2/3s majority voting.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 and with other groups. There's no clear way to
> handle when decisions affect more than one group or even which groups they
> affect. I think a lot of things would turn into "this affects everyone"
> decisions, and then we're back to consensus again.
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Johny Radio <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> off-load more decisions to interest groups and special-purpose teams.
>>> Each group and team elects or appoints a representative for transparent
>>> but small org-wide meetings.
>> With this arrangement, even org-wide meetings could operate by consensus--
>> because it would be a small group.
>> (i suggest this as a long-time opponent of consensus)
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss