20 Mar
2013
20 Mar
'13
9:33 a.m.
Fair enough,
And, I mean, I'm on board with that.
One other thought: I think one way we could look at that is similar to a
requirements phase on an agile project: You have a tiger team up
front(political philosophy people, people with expertise in community org,
et all) to set parameters, and then you make the people who write the
document the content owners, and overall product owners.
Intake comes from all users via email to the product owners, goes into the
document, and most of that could happen offline, and if people object we
take a vote on issues. I'm a big fan of voting, and don't know why we
don't do it. If it keeps the meetings under 45 mins, I won't miss a
meeting.
-Rusty
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
OK, so, because it seems to have been assumed that I
think
rules/guidelines/articles/whatever are unnecessary, I shall
paraphrase.
The people who should be working on the
rules/guidelines/articles/whatever are the people who are interested
in these things.
The people who come to general meetings shouldn't be expected to care
as deeply (or at all).
General Meetings, in general, set the tone for the culture. Watch how
you apportion time, because the most time-expensive things you make
everybody do are the things people come to expect more of.
Start as you mean to go on. Embrace the awesome. Backchannel the tedious.
That's pretty much all I'm saying here.
--Naomi
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:28 PM, rusty lindgren <rustylindgren(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
--
Cheers,
Rusty Lindgren
--
Naomi Theora Most
naomi(a)nthmost.com
+1-415-728-7490
skype: nthmost
http://twitter.com/nthmost
--
Cheers,
Rusty Lindgren
**
--
Cheers,
Rusty Lindgren
**
Naomi,
I understand where you are coming from, but I think hackers are sometimes
very naive and get taken advantage of, and have no way out.
So, while those are certainly good foundations for a good group of people
that you mention, I do think it's short-sighted to assume we don't need
any
protections. As a point of fact, this all
started with our first problem
between members, and with no process, it could have been worse, even
though
we don't see it that way. Mob rule is also
scary.
Where I will side with you is not that this is ego driven, but that not
everyone has the same writing skill-set, so this seems a bit ivory tower
of
us to keep going to this extent, and I guess I
missed that angle in
Patrick's response. Everyone owns their discourse, and I think the
mistake
is to write one off for the other, and instead we
should be focusing on
how
other people can get involved and how we can make
this process more
achievable for everyone, documenting perspectives rather than going down
that road. But, I don't think this is an intentional thing by any of the
members, and we shouldn't be trying to put strain on eachother.
I also think having a formal process isn't necessarily different from
hacker
tools are effectively leveraged against problems.
Why even build
frameworks
for coding, if in "real life" we
can't also use frameworks.
-Rusty
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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:
> >
> > 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:
> >> 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
>
>
>
--
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 
20 Mar
20 Mar
8:44 p.m.
New subject: Spiritual analysis of last weeks Meeting
*Update on Action Items*
1. Met, was mainly unimplemented:
1. For (a) I'd like to ask anyone who is interested to meet 30 minutes
before this Wed mtg (so at 6:30pm) to form a Facilitation and Scribe Team
for this week alone (no commitment). Email me if you are interested.
2. Not added, not discussed
1. Also for (a) I'd like to add to the agenda for this Wed that we seek
help in forming a "Constitutional Convention Committee" that
would organize
and advertise a "Constitutional Convention" event that would focus on
entertaining productive collaborative sessions on understanding the
Articles, identifying ambiguity, and proposing specific options to move
forward [e.g. a change to the articles, or a request for more
insight]. The
only requirement is that this group report back to the email list in time
for an update by the next meeting, or in-person at the meeting.
3. Not added, not discussed, no other volunteers, wiki is down
1. For (b) an example of good systems includes creating a "sub-page" on
the wiki in order to demonstrate potential changes to the articles
themselves (e.g.
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association/Constable). I'm
offering myself, and seeking anyone else who would be generally available
to demonstrate and encourage the use of sub-pages to draft changes, or
other ways to improve the Articles, such as Bill's excellent
http://sudoroom.org/wiki/Governance_tests.
4. Not added, not discussed
1. Also for (b) I want to add to the agenda of this Weds meeting that we
include a brief discussion on how to share and consider all of our
different, helpful, insightful perspectives on how groups are able to
collaborate, other than the email list.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 9:33 AM, rusty lindgren <rustylindgren(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Fair enough,
And, I mean, I'm on board with that.
One other thought: I think one way we could look at that is similar to a
requirements phase on an agile project: You have a tiger team up
front(political philosophy people, people with expertise in community org,
et all) to set parameters, and then you make the people who write the
document the content owners, and overall product owners.
Intake comes from all users via email to the product owners, goes into the
document, and most of that could happen offline, and if people object we
take a vote on issues. I'm a big fan of voting, and don't know why we
don't do it. If it keeps the meetings under 45 mins, I won't miss a
meeting.
-Rusty
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
OK, so, because it seems to have been assumed
that I think
rules/guidelines/articles/whatever are unnecessary, I shall
paraphrase.
The people who should be working on the
rules/guidelines/articles/whatever are the people who are interested
in these things.
The people who come to general meetings shouldn't be expected to care
as deeply (or at all).
General Meetings, in general, set the tone for the culture. Watch how
you apportion time, because the most time-expensive things you make
everybody do are the things people come to expect more of.
Start as you mean to go on. Embrace the awesome. Backchannel the
tedious.
That's pretty much all I'm saying here.
--Naomi
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:28 PM, rusty lindgren <rustylindgren(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
--
Naomi Theora Most
naomi(a)nthmost.com
+1-415-728-7490
skype: nthmost
http://twitter.com/nthmost
--
Cheers,
Rusty Lindgren
**
--
Cheers,
Rusty Lindgren
**
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
Naomi,
I understand where you are coming from, but I think hackers are
sometimes
very naive and get taken advantage of, and have
no way out.
So, while those are certainly good foundations for a good group of
people
that you mention, I do think it's
short-sighted to assume we don't need
any
protections. As a point of fact, this all
started with our first
problem
between members, and with no process, it could
have been worse, even
though
we don't see it that way. Mob rule is also
scary.
Where I will side with you is not that this is ego driven, but that not
everyone has the same writing skill-set, so this seems a bit ivory
tower of
us to keep going to this extent, and I guess I
missed that angle in
Patrick's response. Everyone owns their discourse, and I think the
mistake
is to write one off for the other, and instead we
should be focusing on
how
other people can get involved and how we can make
this process more
achievable for everyone, documenting perspectives rather than going down
that road. But, I don't think this is an intentional thing by any of
the
members, and we shouldn't be trying to put
strain on eachother.
I also think having a formal process isn't necessarily different from
hacker
tools are effectively leveraged against problems.
Why even build
frameworks
for coding, if in "real life" we
can't also use frameworks.
-Rusty
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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:
> >
> > 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:
> >> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
--
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
--
Cheers,
Rusty Lindgren
4258
days inactive
4259
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Matthew Senate -
rusty lindgren