[Noisebridge-discuss] All I want is 51% :)

Naomi Most pnaomi at gmail.com
Fri Mar 28 21:13:13 UTC 2014


^^^ This.

At some point I'd like to make a demographic visualization depicting
the population of Noisebridge in terms of "lone jackasses", "his one
friend", and "everybody else."

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, but you avoid the "tyranny of the lone jackass and his one friend."
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Jessica Ross <jessica.r.ross at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Don't you still get the Tyranny of the Majority problem with n-2?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Hannah Grimm <dharlette at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd be in favor of tweaking consensus into an n-2 system, or of going to
>>> a democracy.  I think either one would be a step forward for the space.
>>>
>>> I think that fundamentally most of the people here want very similar
>>> things, and that maybe if we could all stop screaming at each other,
>>> assuming the worst, accusing people of being literally Hitler, calling each
>>> other feds, etc. we might actually be able to get things done.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (correcting myself: alright, a few people are saying the problems you
>>>> want to solve aren't problems.)
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > People in favor of Consensus have also suggested "consensus minus 1"
>>>> > and "consensus minus 2".  No one is saying the problems you're saying
>>>> > aren't problems.
>>>> >
>>>> > My core issue with your stance that you seem to be "overengineering"
>>>> > the solution, while overlooking the root causes of the disagreements
>>>> > that lead to these decisions having to be made in the first place.
>>>> >
>>>> > Furthermore, majority voting has many well-established problems.  The
>>>> > term "tyranny of the majority" comes to mind.  Likewise, it is easier
>>>> > -- and thus faster -- to pass legislation in that structure.
>>>> >
>>>> > Is rapid legislation something Noisebridge wants / should have?  I
>>>> > would argue not.
>>>> >
>>>> > No, what Noisebridge needs are rapidly functioning systems to handle
>>>> > /specific/ recurring problems:
>>>> >
>>>> > * sleeping at the space
>>>> > * drug use at the space
>>>> > * harassment within the community
>>>> > * making sure stuff get fixed / replaced / maintained
>>>> > * controlling access to the space as needed.
>>>> >
>>>> > Can you name any other problems?  (I'm honestly trying to make a
>>>> > comprehensive list here.)
>>>> >
>>>> > Now, can you name any voting, democratic body whose job it is to
>>>> > decide on the fate of errant individuals?
>>>> >
>>>> > We have branches of government for the above problems in the United
>>>> > States, and they are not legislative.  And hey, look at that: the
>>>> > court system makes judgements on individuals by consensus.
>>>> >
>>>> > ...All except the Supreme Court, that is.  I'd be more for Noisebridge
>>>> > having a Supreme Court than I would care to move NB to a general
>>>> > "everything goes to majority vote" scenario.
>>>> >
>>>> > --Naomi
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Al Sweigart <asweigart at gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> Really, I just want the membership to be able to pass/block things
>>>> >> based on
>>>> >> majority vote. If we got that, there'd be no need for me to be on the
>>>> >> board
>>>> >> and I'd resign. All the other stuff in those proposals from the board
>>>> >> I'm
>>>> >> either neutral about or don't think they were deal-breakers.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It's not that all of Noisebridge's problems would be solved if we got
>>>> >> rid of
>>>> >> consensus, it's that all of Noisebridge's problems would become
>>>> >> _solvable_.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Consensus is what lets a single person walk in to a meeting an hour
>>>> >> or two
>>>> >> late and block something that would have otherwise passed. Talk about
>>>> >> what
>>>> >> "true" consensus is supposed to be, but this is what it is in
>>>> >> practice and
>>>> >> has been for the last five years. My thoughts have been that most
>>>> >> members
>>>> >> are against things like people sleeping and living at the space, but
>>>> >> they've
>>>> >> been kept from fixing those problems because it only takes one person
>>>> >> to
>>>> >> veto any changes.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But if a majority of people (even at this point, when a lot of people
>>>> >> have
>>>> >> left NB or are staying away (see also, Double Union)) wanted things
>>>> >> like
>>>> >> sleep hacking and consensus, I'd just agree to disagree but
>>>> >> acknowledge that
>>>> >> that is what Noisebridge wants.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> -Al
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Naomi Theora Most
>>>> naomi at nthmost.com
>>>> +1-415-728-7490
>>>>
>>>> skype: nthmost
>>>>
>>>> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jessica R. Ross
>> jessica.r.ross at gmail.com
>
>



-- 
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