15 May
2015
15 May
'15
6:52 p.m.
Consistent unreasonable blocking is a quick way to find yourself as a
member in bad standing. Blocking isn't meant to be a punitive thing... it's
supposed to be a good way to show how serious something is, so amendments
can be made or discussion can go forward as to why this is a blocking
concern at all.
We have talked about lowering quorum to seven, but it's never gone through
because we've come to the conclusion that it's better to try and up meeting
attendance rather than reduce quorum.
If you don't have faith in sudo's system, you don't have to participate.
That's not to say that people wouldn't be sad to see you go, but it's
always an option. If you're finding yourself disillusioned or not agreeing
with sudo's core politics, there are other hackerspaces out there. The Bay
Area has a ton! Maybe you can find one that aligns with you better. As a
moderator of a heavily used web app, I have to remind people of this
constantly. Not every community is for everyone. It'd be kind of messed up
if that were the case.
Honestly, it sounds like you're having issues with the Omni at large in
general. Maybe it's just not working out. Maybe you need to take a break
and assess if this is the right community for you after all.
You also have the option of not participating in the system if you don't
have faith in it, without stopping being part of the community. There are a
lot of folks at sudo and the Omni who don't get deep into the politics or
the day-to-day workings. And that's okay. They shouldn't have to be
involved on that level if they don't want to be.
If you do want to change something, though, and missed a meeting because of
an emergency or a double-booking, again, you are welcome to submit a
counter-proposal.
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Rachel Wolfsohn <rawjnana(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
<3 Rachel
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(a)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(a)gmail.com <danarauz(a)gmail.com
> wrote:
> :)
>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Marc Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Rachel Wolfsohn <rawjnana(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My question is whose idea was this in the first place?
>>>
>>
>> It was this guy:
>>
>> http://i.imgur.com/qmPKJHh.gif
>>
>> --
>> marc/juul
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
>
--
<3 Rachel
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
