<h2><font style="font-weight:normal" size="2">Hi friends!</font></h2><h2><font style="font-weight:normal" size="2">I just put these up on the wiki here: </font><font><span style="font-weight:normal"><a href="http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup">http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup</a></span></font></h2>
<p>Next I'll send out group emails for each of the working groups. It is definitely time to start forking our weekly meetings into several smaller action-oriented meetups each week :D <br></p><h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Marginalia"><span style><span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"></span></span>Marginalia</span></h2>
<ul><li>Everything Troy said. (Quoted buckminster fuller!)
</li><li>Consensus:
<ul><li>Latin roots - <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://www.msu.edu/%7Edefores1/gre/roots/gre_rts_afx2.htm">https://www.msu.edu/~defores1/gre/roots/gre_rts_afx2.htm</a>
</li></ul>
</li></ul>
<pre> sen old senior, senator, senile
sent, sens feel sentiment, consent resent, dissent, sentimental, sense, sensation,
sensitive, sensory, dissension
</pre>
<ul><li><ul><li>OED - <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/consensus">http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/consensus</a>
</li><li>Origin: mid 17th century: from Latin, 'agreement', from consens- 'agreed', from the verb consentire
</li></ul>
</li></ul>
<h2><span class="editsection">[<a href="http://hackerspaces.org/w/indexphp?title=Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup&action=edit§ion=2" title="Edit section: Attending">edit</a>]</span> <span class="mw-headline" id="Attending">Attending</span></h2>
<p>Rachel, Jenny, Evan, Eddan, Timon, Max, Troy, Matt, Michael, Marc, Eddie, Victoria, Marina, Eddie, Anthony, Ibrahim, Jehan,
</p>
<h2><span class="editsection">[<a href="http://hackerspaces.org/w/indexphp?title=Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup&action=edit§ion=3" title="Edit section: Preambulatory">edit</a>]</span> <span class="mw-headline" id="Preambulatory">Preambulatory</span></h2>
<p>Evan - unaniminity vs sublevel groupings of decision-making - we
don't want the majority nor the minority to dictate the decisions made
</p><p>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
</p>
<ul><li>Decisions are non-binding, to allow for the dynamic, fluctuating nature of grassroots organizations
</li></ul>
<p>Rachel - Is the organization the set of goals we all agree to?
</p><p>Timon - the governance structure then may emerge out of
</p>
<h2><span class="editsection">[<a href="http://hackerspaces.org/w/indexphp?title=Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup&action=edit§ion=4" title="Edit section: Introductions">edit</a>]</span> <span class="mw-headline" id="Introductions">Introductions</span></h2>
<p>Introductions today take the form of discussing our craziest ideas
</p><p>Max - extended rhyming dictionary
</p><p>Matt- repository for all the bad / rejected / alt knowledge
</p><p>Erica - code poetry & alt writing systems
</p><p>Timon - post-currency systems; improv scripting hybridization apps
</p><p>Ibrahim - next-gen wiki using datasets to make predictions of efficacious cures (alt or otherwise)
</p><p>Jehan - dynamic currency exchange for day-to-day operations
</p><p>Michael - DNA barcoding dandelions across the US
</p><p>Troy - unification of all knowledge through an informational
mindmap that follows reality-based econometrics for daily application to
enhance rapid learning
</p><p>Eddan - recreate the internet in an open knowledge structure on 6
levels - access, physical, software, social media, content, and data
</p><p>Evan - linguistic typology of meaning threough networked
phylogeny of linguistics (etmology mindmapping software) -
techno-villages/maker-villages
</p><p>Jenny - matchmaking ideas, people and projects in alternative
community experiments (eg hackerspaces, intentional communities &
activist communities)
</p><p>Rachel - neurology in terms of meditation
</p><p>Anthony - venture communist co-op that will spread virally throughout the economy
</p><p>Marina - open source mode of production for everyone
</p><p>Tracy - free education, host an SF microcontrollers meeting here
</p><p>Eddie - open source everything! working with city governments to help them use open source technologies most effectively
</p><p>Marc - automation of shit jobs so humans can spend their time working on Awesome Things; liberation & accessibility
</p>
<h2><span class="editsection">[<a href="http://hackerspaces.org/w/indexphp?title=Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup&action=edit§ion=5" title="Edit section: Working Groups">edit</a>]</span> <span class="mw-headline" id="Working_Groups">Working Groups</span></h2>
<p>1) Art Murmur Working Group - Tracy, Troy, Erica, Timon
</p><p>2) Tech Stuff Working Group - Eddan, Jenny, Matt
</p><p>3) Finding New Space - Marc, Eddan, Timon, Jenny, Ibrahim, Tracy, Anthony
</p><p>4) Researching Alternative Membership Modelities - Marina, Jenny, Evan
</p>
<h2><span class="editsection">[<a href="http://hackerspaces.org/w/indexphp?title=Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup&action=edit§ion=6" title="Edit section: Membership">edit</a>]</span> <span class="mw-headline" id="Membership">Membership</span></h2>
<p>Eddan: separating financial / externally facing from membership / internally facing
</p><p>Jenny: alternative ways of defining "membership" - such as leading workshops
</p><p>Jehan: how do we quantify membership?
</p><p>Matt: Needs more human energy - critical abstraction is separating income from participation; how do we address public access?
</p><p>Erica - maybe group could vote on the validity of participation
</p><p>Jehan - what does membership mean? what do you do to get it?
</p><p>Rachel - cites NB policy on membership - you have full
participation on the consensus process. Problem: a lot of people believe
you must be a member to access the space
</p><p>Evan - if people could choose where they want their money to go
to, where could we go from there? what if when someone pays 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?
</p><p>Troy - complexities with core principles we adhere to;
</p><p>Marc - this is a problem we should discuss when we have more money than we have rent
</p><p>Matt - in favor of parallel threads / do-ocracy - but we should stay on point (reiterating Marc)
</p>
<h2><span class="editsection">[<a href="http://hackerspaces.org/w/indexphp?title=Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup&action=edit§ion=7" title="Edit section: Consensus-Process">edit</a>]</span> <span class="mw-headline" id="Consensus-Process">Consensus-Process</span></h2>
<p>What is consensus?
</p>
<ul><li>turn-taking vs. taking stack vs. discussion
</li><li>consensus is based on the concept of consent
</li><li>consensus vs voting
<ul><li>--> voting is a process where a group of people choose among various options
</li><li>--> consensus is a collaborative process of decision-making where the group together chooses a path they consent to
</li><li>--> shaped like an inverted triangle: problem ascertained and clarified, proposal(s) suggested
</li></ul>
</li><li>"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)
</li><li>"con-scent" - to feel together (evan-etymology)
</li><li>-N-1 model: almost everyone agrees (depends on how the group is)
</li><li>-in a 100% consensus model, 1 person can block; in an N-1 model, 2 people can block
<ul><li>-->you can only really block if you're willing to stay engaged in the process of solving the problem
</li></ul>
</li><li>-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
</li></ul>
<p>Evan: where there are factions, so be it, let it be - which is harder, but not an imposition
</p><p>Troy: no living system can exist without diversity
</p><p>Eddan: having the right kind of decision-making process for different things
</p><p>Evan: Beyond geographical, to mental locality for decision-making
to occur; aggregates around popular ideas, rather than final decisions
</p><p>Erica: Delegate consensus among working groups that have primary concern over certain matters
</p><p>Max: Benevolent dictators tend to take on the leadership roles in "consensus" models
</p><p>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
</p><p>Rachel: Types of agenda items include: Decisions that have to get made; announcements; discussion items; group therapy.
</p><p>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
</p><p>Rachel: Working groups create potentially more intimate relationships for those wishing to work together on a project
</p><p>Ibrahim: Perhaps we could designate the working groups as Sudo Art, Sudo Design, Sudo Whatever...
</p><p>Eddan: Sudo groups get open thinking but no decisions without consensus
</p><p>Evan: We can easily reach consensus if we understand each other
</p><p>Jenny: ...and keep together the sense of the community
</p><p>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?
</p><p>Troy: Consensus can be achieved independently without others dissenting?
</p><p>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
</p><p>Tracy: What is the procedure to come through consensus?
</p><p>Victoria: Impressed that we have a history of agreeing to do things and doing them
</p><p>Eddie concurs we should just do stuff and form our own committees
</p><p>Rachel: the 20% minority point is the reason for consensus; what
is the decision about, and how much are individual actors willing to
act?
</p>
<ul><li>---> 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.
</li></ul>
<p>Marina: Let's not digress - the perils of consensus = over-deliberation
</p><p>Eddan: We should focus on particular processes wrt consensus
</p><p>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
</p>
<ul><li>--> Vision, Mission/Purpose, Goals, Strategies, Actions and Behaviors
</li></ul>
<p>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!
</p><p>Eddan: Yes, we can transfer a lot of these discussions online -
also pseudonymity is very important for edge voices to contribute to the
conversation
</p><p>Marc: We should try one model out, stick with it for awhile, and then analyze it
</p><p>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
</p><p>Troy: "Gotta learn to walk before we fly"
</p><p>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.
</p><p>Evan: Voluntaryism!
</p><p>Eddan: Commons-based Peer Production!
</p><p>What things do we need to decide upon?
</p>
<ul><li>Timeline Structure:
</li><li>Who makes decisions
</li></ul>
<p>Sources:
</p>
<ul><li>Peter Gelderloos: Consensus
</li></ul>
<p>Also:
</p>
<pre>TALK
ON
IRC on
FREENODE #sudocynics
<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=sudocynics">http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=sudocynics</a>
</pre><br>--------<br clear="all">Jenny<br>
<a href="http://jennyryan.net/" target="_blank">http://jennyryan.net</a><br>
<a href="http://thepyre.org/" target="_blank">http://thepyre.org</a><br>
<a href="http://thevirtualcampfire.org/" target="_blank">http://thevirtualcampfire.org</a><br>
<a href="http://technomadic.tumblr.com/" target="_blank">http://technomadic.tumblr.com</a><br>
<br>
`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`<br>
<div>
"Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories."<br>
-Laurie Anderson<br>
<br>
"Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."<br>
-Hannah Arendt<br>
<br>
"To define is to kill. To suggest is to create."<br>
-Stéphane Mallarmé<br>
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`</div>
<br>