blocking can work. but then someone could block forever something that's reasonable to the majority. there's always a limit, not always gonna make everyone happy. limitations on blocking could prevent this, yes. 

bc ppl don't always agree, the higher a percentage is for the required the majority, the closer it is to consensus, the system is leaving behind the few rather than the silent, if voting is required. when consensus rules, the loud and confident can get away with murder, esp if those in disaccord happen to be busy at the vet or something...

just my belief. consensus won't actually work for the real world- only for a small place of play/leisure, really. where a small group already generally agrees with each other or shares personal interests.

yeah, showing up to meetings is an answer. when you can.

 as people who know Power know well, once something is in effect, it takes a lot more to get people to change it,

... bc there's a perception of there having been agreement by so many in the first place, rather than a small group. 
Example:
 the U.S. gov't's structure. It was created by merely dozens of people, for millions, one day hundreds of millions, of people

and honestly, it takes faith in a system to participate in it. faith i don't have in any system but that of family, true loyal unstructured unsolicited solidarity, and a universal spirit, at the moment. 



P.S i've heard talk from sudo's founders about lessening quorum to seven. because attendance is so low. running sudo is already left in the hands of it's founders. perhaps more than you all realize, people don't want to step on your toes...

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 6:18 PM, Ryan <yandoryn@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, there's a really obvious answer to this fear of cliques.

Show up to meetings.

All members have blocking power. Yay consensus.

If you're unhappy with a proposal that was passed, make a counter-proposal. Nothing is set in stone. sudo's policies can change very quickly. We're not waterfall; we're agile. It's better to deploy our changes regularly, knowing we can further build on these features than make sure they're perfect when the race starts.

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Ryan <yandoryn@gmail.com> wrote:
Quorum takes 10 people. I really don't consider that a small group.

I personally think that voting creates a tyranny of the majority which inherently oppresses minority groups. In a democracy, minorities have to hope for the benevolence of the majority to deign to stoop down low enough to recognize them as people.

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Rachel Wolfsohn <rawjnana@gmail.com> wrote:
I would be wary, sudo, of how few people it already takes to have quorum, and if that changes...
A small clique of friends can be at a meeting, and make decisions for all of sudo. 
It's a broken system. 

Our leaders can either say 
"there's the power, don't give it to anyone, let's split it consciously"
 or
 "where's the power? i don't see it" 
the latter is falsity in my opinion, it deters you from taking any
the former is truth. 


I think 1-vote-per-member; remotely solicited when live-vote isn't possible, is a much sounder way of representing the opinions and needs of many people. 

to my eyes, consensus seems to be closer to high school social dynamics than a step in political evolution. i'm definitely disillusioned about consensus after seeing this project. 




On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:30 PM, danarauz@gmail.com <danarauz@gmail.com> wrote:
:) 


On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Marc Juul <juul@labitat.dk> wrote:


On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Rachel Wolfsohn <rawjnana@gmail.com> wrote:

My question is whose idea was this in the first place?


It was this guy:
--
marc/juul


_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss





--
<3 Rachel

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss






--
<3 Rachel