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

openfly openfly at xn--kgbed8a0h.xn--ngbc5azd
Fri Mar 28 23:38:18 UTC 2014


You WANT the tyranny of the majority.  That's what consensus freaking is.

And you want to shut down blocking by lunatic fringe membership.

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 03:54:36PM -0500, Jessica Ross 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

> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss



More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list