19 Mar
2013
19 Mar
'13
6:06 p.m.
I think it's important to keep in mind that what's being debated here
aren't new "rules", but an update to the process of conflict resolution and
a new position to help make that happen.
Also keep in mind that this is in reaction to a very real situation where
the conflict resolution process failed to work in almost every way. It is
not an arbitrary rules making sesh based on some hypothetical.
--Andrew
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Tommy York <tommy.york(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think the reason that we're going through this
challenging,
time-consuming, but (in my opinion) ultimately worthwhile process is that
even in a space with this kind of aspirational goal - of universal mutual
respect - we experienced conflict where the process to resolve that
conflict felt worse than anything like this discussion around the articles.
We were unclear on our process, it got kind of messy, and now we want to
create a process that can handle similar kinds of conflict in the future.
I like Matt's calling the working group a "Constitutional Convention
Committee;" in my mind, it evokes a kind of living document that allows us
to best collaboratively govern the space. We're all committed to it, and
it's ultimately for the benefit of the space to go through the process of
amending the document or not.
- Tommy
-----------------
Thomas Riley York (杨德民) 510.926.0510
http://www.linkedin.com/in/tommyyork
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
---------
Andrew Lowe
http://www.lostways.com
Representation is just another bureaucratic
process that takes up time
and doesn't ultimately matter.
All that matters is creating a culture where people respect each
other, where everyone feels safe, and where improper behaviors come
with real consequences.
Rules can create explicit delineations around cultural standards -- a
bit like setting yourself reminders to take your vitamin C and brush
your teeth -- but without the spirit in place to WANT to "become"
those things, the rules are pointless.
And when you have the spirit in place, the rules become redundant.
--Naomi
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Anon195714 <anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
Case in point of the cultural item I wrote about yesterday in this
thread, that most hackers are more interested in hacking than in
political/administrative tasks.
Which to my mind supports the case for a representative structure rather
than trying to engage everyone in tasks that many will find are tedious
and even incomprehensible. Those who have the expertise and the frame
of mind to take on issues such as revisions of bylaws and so on, should
be encouraged and formally recognized to do so.
Re."rules": There's rules and there's rules, and there's
agreements
among consenting adults.
Nobody here would think it amusing to try to hack a rule that forbids
physical aggression against others, e.g. "Hmm, if I just discretely push
someone so they fall down, and then claim it was an accident, can I tie
up the group with a six-hour meeting about this and still end up keeping
my membership?" Or rather, it would be a paradigm case of the most
obnoxious kind of trolling.
Same case about serving alcohol to people under 21 who might be at
events. That carries the risk of the place getting shut down or
otherwise subjected to external legal sanctions.
In the end, we're self-governing, so the "rules" we make are _agreements
among consenting adults_.
-G.
=====
On 13-03-19-Tue 2:28 PM, Naomi Most wrote:
--
Naomi Theora Most
naomi(a)nthmost.com
+1-415-728-7490
skype: nthmost
http://twitter.com/nthmost
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
Look, here's the problem with deliberating
long hours over bureaucracy
in a hacker organization:
Greetings lovelies,
If I may step in with some perspective based on about a decade of
hanging out in hacker groups...
Hackers' primary M.O. is GETTING AROUND RULES.
So, if you, on an individual level, enjoy making up rules and getting
semantics perfect, you should do that... as a project... on your own
time.
Because I guarantee you that *at least* those 11 people who abstained
last week, plus several more I'm sure, were sitting there completely
disengaged from that special interest project, because it is not
fundamentally interesting.
Why is it not interesting? Well, for something to be interesting, it
has to feel as though it actually affects you.
If you believe that rules are made for getting-around, then of what
interest is it, really, what the content of those rules actually is?
I can make some strong arguments as to why front-loading your
rules-making in a hacker culture is a waste of time at best, and
dangerous at worst. (One example: some of the people who are most
interested in the letter of the law turn out to be the most interested
in twisting it to their own ends.)
But to be honest, I'd rather get back to hacking.
I'll see some of you tonight for sudo room radio stuff. Many of you I
will not see for radio stuff, because it may not be of interest. :)
Cheers,
Naomi