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

Mon May 18 13:33:16 PDT 2015

To clarify, I brought this up because I plan to be more active as liaison
between the sudo room membership and the other omni commons collectives,
especially by participating in our spokescouncil. I asked the group at our
weekly meeting to help me clarify who the active delegates are so I could
send an announcement to everyone so they know who they can talk to about
omni commons-related things. Further, I wanted to clarify a process for how
others can participate.

The path to participation is clear, the channels of communication are
clear, our ability to improve transparency and accountability is clear in
my original message.

Let me know if there are any other concerns or questions.

// Matt

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Ryan <yandoryn at gmail.com> wrote:

> The decision of how to move forward. The decision to engage, disengage,
> engage less, engage elsewhere, engage louder, engage more often... There
> are a myriad of choices to how you want to go forward. In the end, you
> should do whatever you feel is best for you and your well-being. That's not
> selfish... if you keep crumbling apart like this because you're not meshing
> with this community, you won't be able enact change elsewhere.
>
> Like you said, you'd rather break something than be broken.
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Rachel Wolfsohn <rawjnana at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I love you too, Ryan. I def wanna visit with you soon (not at omni)
>>
>> But, what decision? What decision is it I'm supposed to be making?
>>
>> People aren't always right or fair, and trying to make it that way is
>> futile. It's a dog-eat-dog world. I've spent my whole life trying to draw
>> the line where I say "this is us, these other people and i are part of each
>> other" as far and wide as i can. i still choose compassion and mercy over
>> punishment or control any day- but i have way less faith in people at omni
>> and at colleges than i did when i was living on the street. way less.
>>
>> but it just leads me to see ppl with good hearts play out the same bs
>> selfish people do; and people either being broken or breaking something.
>> i'd rather break something than be broken, and i'm gonna try to live more
>> like jon stark than a greek muse
>>
>> much much love for you,
>>
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Ryan <yandoryn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Rachel, I trust that you'll make the best decision for you, and no
>>> matter what, I <3 you, kay?
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Rachel Wolfsohn <rawjnana at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Very true, there are plenty of other hackerspaces
>>>>
>>>> But sadly, there are few Commons spaces. Few Public spaces. And Sudo is
>>>> part of a project that wants to be a Commons, open to the public.
>>>>
>>>> Alas, I hope this whole land is made of truly communal, public spaces,
>>>> within my lifetime.
>>>>
>>>> And when that time comes, that people are ready for real change, it
>>>> will be confidence, outspokenness and respect that leads people, as it
>>>> always was.
>>>>
>>>> Which would you choose? Law-given freedom? The freedom allotted by
>>>> resources held? Or inherent freedom?
>>>>
>>>> I officially give up on trying to fix any fucking system. Please,
>>>> enjoy. :)
>>>>
>>>> I'm grateful really. It was about time I snapped out of it; the
>>>> illusion that living within social structures, even in full-frontal-truth,
>>>> can actually make a difference.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Ryan <yandoryn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> <3 Rachel
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> <3 Rachel
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20150518/e92a00d1/attachment.html>