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

Callme Whatiwant nejucomo at gmail.com
Sat Mar 29 23:51:23 UTC 2014


On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 6:12 PM, openfly
<openfly at xn--kgbed8a0h.xn--ngbc5azd> wrote:
>
> Everything you said, is in point of fact by definition of consensus on wikipedia,
> and every dictionary i could find, including the venerable oxford english
> dictionary...   False.
>
> So... there's that.

I am uncertain about what your purpose, goal, or proposal is.

Are you unclear on Henner Zeller's description of consensus?  From
what I gather, that description is roughly what everyone around here
means by "consensus".  If you are unclear about that, please ask a
specific question.

The dismissive hyperbole "by all definitions of consensus in existence
on earth" neglects the fact that almost everyone you are talking to
(most of whom are on Earth) is using a definition of consensus thereby
contradicting your claim.

I was mildly amused to read "So... there's that"...  so... there's that.


>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 04:47:47PM -0700, Henner Zeller wrote:
>> On 28 March 2014 16:37, openfly <openfly at xn--kgbed8a0h.xn--ngbc5azd> wrote:
>> > FTR by all definitions of consensus in existence on earth, majority vote
>> > IS consensus.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Consensus in the decision-making-sense is well defined and essentially
>> the right to veto or everyone silently agreeing.
>> If there are n people in the room and consent on something they might
>> either violently agree or not care, which passes consensus.
>> If there is only one person who disagrees enough to veto, then the
>> item is not accepted and need to be kept discussed.
>> Ideally, this reaches more stable communities, but it requires that
>> people actively give a shit about the well-being of the community.
>>
>> This is vastly different from majority vote.
>>
>> -h
>>
>> >
>> > so.... I am confused.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:00:15PM -0700, Al Sweigart 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
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list