[hackerspaces] How is that consensus thing working out?
matt at nycresistor.com
Mon Aug 29 23:30:16 CEST 2011
I feel like if you have to formalize consensus something has gone horribly
On Aug 29, 2011 2:26 PM, "Chris Weiss" <cweiss at gmail.com> wrote:
> Where consensus fails is that it depends, at least a little, on peer
> pressure and hacker-types don't usually fall for peer pressure.
> Where it works is when the right questions are asked and reasoned out,
> and this is the hard part. In Far's "I think Emacs sucks" vs "Emacs
> Sucks" example, the latter would be followed with "why, in detail" and
> then pick at the details to see if they are relevant to the item at
> hand. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. When they are not,
> a reasonable person will conceded.
> Of course this assumes that everyone with rights for the vote is a
> reasonable person, and this simply is not reality, especially when it
> comes to anything that requires a financial outlay. Arch Reactor
> often has consensus, but we don't require it. We do require more than
> a simple majority.
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Hans Fraiponts <fraiponts at gmail.com>
>> Just interested, does the consensus pattern work in your space?
>> 1) do you use the consensus pattern? For some or all decisions?
>> 2) what happens when someone blocks consensus? Is this member expected
>> to reach consensus (by compromise) by next meeting,? Does this ever
>> 3) do you have the impression most members agree with the consensus
>> 4) Did you develop an alternative for the consensus model?
>> Thanks for your input,
>> Hans F.
>> 1) http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/The_Consensus_Pattern
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Discuss