Sudo room/06-20-2012 Meetup

From Sudo Room
Jump to navigation Jump to search

6/20/2012 - Meeting Notes

Marginalia

  sen           old     senior, senator,            senile
  sent, sens    feel    sentiment, consent          resent, dissent, sentimental, sense, sensation, 
                                                    sensitive, sensory, dissension

Attending

Rachel, Jenny, Evan, Eddan, Timon, Max, Troy, Matt, Michael, Marc, Eddie, Victoria, Marina, Eddie, Anthony, Ibrahim, Jehan,

Preambulatory

Evan - unaniminity vs sublevel groupings of decision-making - we don't want the majority nor the minority to dictate the decisions made Eddan - bicameral, diversity based on sources of expertise / types of agency-structure (non-profit/B-corp/LLC/SuperPAC); space for ano-/pseudo-nymous commenting on any issue

  • Decisions are non-binding, to allow for the dynamic, fluctuating nature of grassroots organizations

Rachel - Is the organization the set of goals we all agree to? Timon - the governance structure then may emerge out of

Introductions

Introductions today take the form of discussing our craziest ideas

  • Max - extended rhyming dictionary
  • Matt- repository for all the bad / rejected / alt knowledge
  • Erica - code poetry & alt writing systems
  • Timon - post-currency systems; improv scripting hybridization apps
  • Ibrahim - next-gen wiki using datasets to make predictions of efficacious cures (alt or otherwise)
  • Jehan - dynamic currency exchange for day-to-day operations
  • Michael - DNA barcoding dandelions across the US
  • Troy - unification of all knowledge through an informational mindmap that follows reality-based econometrics for daily application to enhance rapid learning
  • Eddan - recreate the internet in an open knowledge structure on 6 levels - access, physical, software, social media, content, and data
  • Evan - linguistic typology of meaning threough networked phylogeny of linguistics (etmology mindmapping software) - techno-villages/maker-villages
  • Jenny - matchmaking ideas, people and projects in alternative community experiments (eg hackerspaces, intentional communities & activist communities)
  • Rachel - neurology in terms of meditation
  • Anthony - venture communist co-op that will spread virally throughout the economy
  • Marina - open source mode of production for everyone
  • Tracy - free education, host an SF microcontrollers meeting here
  • Eddie - open source everything! working with city governments to help them use open source technologies most effectively
  • Marc - automation of shit jobs so humans can spend their time working on Awesome Things; liberation & accessibility

Working Groups

1) Art Murmur Working Group - Tracy, Troy, Erica, Timon 2) Tech Stuff Working Group - Eddan, Jenny, Matt 3) Finding New Space - Marc, Eddan, Timon, Jenny, Ibrahim, Tracy, Anthony 4) Researching Alternative Membership Modelities - Marina, Jenny, Evan

Membership

Eddan: separating financial / externally facing from membership / internally facing Jenny: alternative ways of defining "membership" - such as leading workshops Jehan: how do we quantify membership? Matt: Needs more human energy - critical abstraction is separating income from participation; how do we address public access? Erica - maybe group could vote on the validity of participation Jehan - what does membership mean? what do you do to get it? Rachel - cites NB policy on membership - you have full participation on the consensus process. Problem: a lot of people elieve you must be a member to access the space Evan - if people could choose where they want their money to go to, where could we go from there? what if when someone payts a membership, they got to choose where the funds were allocated to? - possible solution to the problem of unanimity: can we not allow both to function without superceding each other? Troy - complexities with core principles we adhere to; Marc - this is a problem we should discuss when we have more money than we have rent Matt - in favor of parallel threads / do-ocracy - but we should stay on point (reiterating Marc)

Consensus-Process

What is consensus? -turn-taking vs. taking stack vs. discussion -consensus is based on the concept of consent -consensus vs voting --> voting is a process where a group of people choose among various options --> consensus is a collaborative process of decision-making where the group together chooses a path they consent to --> shaped like an inverted triangle: problem ascertained and clarified, proposal(s) suggested "consensus for me is balanced with autonomy... it comes with an anarchist perspective... to create as strong a community as possible while supporting autonomy" (rachel) "con-scent" - to feel together (evan-etymology) -N-1 model: almost everyone agrees (depends on how the group is) -in a 100% consensus model, 1 person can block; in an N-1 model, 2 people can block -->you can only really block if you're willing to stay engaged in the process of solving the problem -another model for blocking: only block if you are so resistant that you would no longer associate yourself with that group or would ask someone to walk away form that group Evan: where there are factions, so be it, let it be - which is harder, but not an imposition Troy: no living system can exist without diversity Eddan: having the right kind of decision-making process for different things Evan: Beyond geographical, to mental locality for decision-making to occur; aggregates around popular ideas, rather than final decisions Erica: Delegate consensus among working groups that have primary concern over certain matters Max: Benevolent dictators tend to take on the leadership roles in "consensus" models Troy: The scope of allowable things relevant to the capabilities and interests of Sudo Room. How items make it on the agenda, when is the agenda is posted, allowable additions and alterations to the agenda; core values / principles; privileges and responsibilities; introducing and explaining an agenda item (who what where when why); Time key items Rachel: Types of agenda items include: Decisions that have to get made; announcements; discussion items; group therapy. Eddan: maintaining diversity to be sufficiently heard by the majority; yet not that it can block consensus by itself; create groups to facilitate diversity through an organic process; bicameral/tripartate model: Working groups generate ideas from scratch / what people have heard, and designate potential working groups Rachel: Working groups create potentially more intimate relationships for those wishing to work together on a project Ibrahim: Perhaps we could designate the working groups as Sudo Art, Sudo Design, Sudo Whatever... Eddan: Sudo groups get open thinking but no decisions without consensus Evan: We can easily reach consensus if we understand each other Jenny: ...and keep together the sense of the community Evan: What do we do when most consent, but a small group feel passionately about the issue?? eg; how do we protect / empower the minority? Troy: Consensus can be achieved independently without others dissenting? Anthony: Advances the idea that Sudo Groups should do whatever the fuck they want unless it causes problems; benevolent dictators might be desirable when selected through lotteries; advances the phrase "masturbatory democracy" in retort to Eddan's proposal Tracy: What is the procedure to come through consensus? Victoria: Impressed that we have a history of agreeing to do things and doing them Eddie concurs we should just do stuff and form our own committees Rachel: the 20% minority point is the reason for consensus; what is the decision about, and how much are individual actors willing to act? ---> How do we know if we have consensus? We follow a model. EG; something is brought up for discussion; issue posted to the mailing list / online; taking into account all concerns / discussion points into the conversation; time interval passes - IF NO ONE DISSENTS, we have reached consensus. Marina: Let's not digress - the perils of consensus = over-deliberation Eddan: We should focus on particular processes wrt consensus Troy: SImple working definitions as a collaboratively inclusive functional term that functions in the interim until further clarifixation in order to create a production process --> Vision, Mission/Purpose, Goals, Strategies, Actions and Behaviors Matt: Point of the workshop is to learn the logistics of making decisions- and we have a problem, which is the need to make decisions, right now! Eddan: Yes, we can transfer a lot of these discussions online - also pseudonymity is very important for edge voices to contribute to the conversation Marc :We should try one model out, stick with it for awhile, and then analyze it Anthony: The scope of things that should be dealt with procedure: keeping the lights on, rent etc; - for that procedure we could procede by discussion --> common proposal --> adoption and noting dissenting opinions --> resolution through majority vote Troy: "Gotta learn to walk before we fly" Rachel: Points of Unity: in anarchical organizations, people come togewther over shared principles, and everything outside of those shared values is negotiated. The rest is up for do-ocratic interest and intention / action. Evan: Voluntaryism! Eddan: Commons-based Peer Production!

What things do we need to decide upon? Timeline Structure: Who makes decisions

Sources: Peter Gelderloos: Consensus

Also: TALK 

ON
IRC on 
 FREENODE #sudocynics
 http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=sudocynics
Retrieved from "https://sudoroom.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup&oldid=252"