[Noisebridge-discuss] catching up with "what's wrong with discussing things at the Tuesday meeting"
pnaomi at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 21:28:52 UTC 2014
No, I mean I have been trying to focus on promoting good process
within the *board*. (I didn't see you ask that question anywhere
"Consensus" (I have to put it in quotes here, because -- after
spending the past 2 sleepless nights reading all I can on Consensus --
I don't believe NB has been doing Consensus for a very long time) does
not need to be used to solve the problems you're talking about.
You are using "consensus" as a blanket term for
Noisebridge-as-a-system, which is *definitely* broken.
But neither Consensus nor democratic voting can solve the problem of
people sleeping at the space. I mean, really: explain to me how that
The board can easily make a rule that sleeping is not allowed. The
board can do that. Is that what you're after? Because I will write
that Proposal right now.
The hard part is enforcement. You're so keen on how "consensus" is
not working, you have never explained how you envision enforcement of
this no-sleeping-rule working.
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com> wrote:
> Naomi, sarcasm doesn't help.
> And I would point out that consensus has failed to resolve the "sleeping is
> a problem" and "sleeping is fine" factions at Noisebridge. I think a more
> equitable voting system for policy would (at least) decrease the
> factionalism because issues could actually get resolved, instead of being
> dragged out for years and occasionally exploding into arguments like the
> sleeping issue has caused.
> Hey, Naomi, when you said you are committed to good process, do you mean the
> process in the bylaws and that the bylaws are not ignorable? (Sorry if
> you've already answered this in a thread I haven't checked.)
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>> Naomi Theora Most
>> naomi at nthmost.com
>> skype: nthmost
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
Naomi Theora Most
naomi at nthmost.com
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss