[hackerspaces] How is that consensus thing working out?

[Chris Weiss]

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> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Just interested, does the consensus pattern[1] 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
> happen?
> 3) do you have the impression most members agree with the consensus pattern?
> 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
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>