[sudo-discuss] Omni Commons Delegates for the Sudo Room

Fri May 15 18:52:23 PDT 2015

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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at gmail.com <danarauz at gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Marc Juul <juul at labitat.dk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Rachel Wolfsohn <rawjnana at 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 at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> <3 Rachel
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> <3 Rachel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20150515/fbefe8ba/attachment.html>