[sudoroom] Meeting Minutes for 6/20/2012

[Jenny Ryan]

Hi friends!I just put these up on the wiki here:
http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup

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
Marginalia

   - Everything Troy said. (Quoted buckminster fuller!)
   - Consensus:
      - Latin roots -
      https://www.msu.edu/~defores1/gre/roots/gre_rts_afx2.htm

  sen           old     senior, senator,            senile
  sent, sens    feel    sentiment, consent          resent, dissent,
sentimental, sense, sensation,
                                                    sensitive,
sensory, dissension


   -
      - OED - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/consensus
      - Origin: mid 17th century: from Latin, 'agreement', from consens-
      'agreed', from the verb consentire

[edit<http://hackerspaces.org/w/index.php?title=Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup&action=edit&section=2>
] Attending

Rachel, Jenny, Evan, Eddan, Timon, Max, Troy, Matt, Michael, Marc, Eddie,
Victoria, Marina, Eddie, Anthony, Ibrahim, Jehan,
[edit<http://hackerspaces.org/w/index.php?title=Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup&action=edit&section=3>
] Preambulatory

Evan - unaniminity vs sublevel groupings of decision-making - we don't want
the majority nor the minority to dictate the decisions made

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

   - Decisions are non-binding, to allow for the dynamic, fluctuating
   nature of grassroots organizations

Rachel - Is the organization the set of goals we all agree to?

Timon - the governance structure then may emerge out of
[edit<http://hackerspaces.org/w/index.php?title=Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup&action=edit&section=4>
] Introductions

Introductions today take the form of discussing our craziest ideas

Max - extended rhyming dictionary

Matt- repository for all the bad / rejected / alt knowledge

Erica - code poetry & alt writing systems

Timon - post-currency systems; improv scripting hybridization apps

Ibrahim - next-gen wiki using datasets to make predictions of efficacious
cures (alt or otherwise)

Jehan - dynamic currency exchange for day-to-day operations

Michael - DNA barcoding dandelions across the US

Troy - unification of all knowledge through an informational mindmap that
follows reality-based econometrics for daily application to enhance rapid
learning

Eddan - recreate the internet in an open knowledge structure on 6 levels -
access, physical, software, social media, content, and data

Evan - linguistic typology of meaning threough networked phylogeny of
linguistics (etmology mindmapping software) -
techno-villages/maker-villages

Jenny - matchmaking ideas, people and projects in alternative community
experiments (eg hackerspaces, intentional communities & activist
communities)

Rachel - neurology in terms of meditation

Anthony - venture communist co-op that will spread virally throughout the
economy

Marina - open source mode of production for everyone

Tracy - free education, host an SF microcontrollers meeting here

Eddie - open source everything! working with city governments to help them
use open source technologies most effectively

Marc - automation of shit jobs so humans can spend their time working on
Awesome Things; liberation & accessibility
[edit<http://hackerspaces.org/w/index.php?title=Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup&action=edit&section=5>
] Working Groups

1) Art Murmur Working Group - Tracy, Troy, Erica, Timon

2) Tech Stuff Working Group - Eddan, Jenny, Matt

3) Finding New Space - Marc, Eddan, Timon, Jenny, Ibrahim, Tracy, Anthony

4) Researching Alternative Membership Modelities - Marina, Jenny, Evan
[edit<http://hackerspaces.org/w/index.php?title=Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup&action=edit&section=6>
] Membership

Eddan: separating financial / externally facing from membership /
internally facing

Jenny: alternative ways of defining "membership" - such as leading
workshops

Jehan: how do we quantify membership?

Matt: Needs more human energy - critical abstraction is separating income
from participation; how do we address public access?

Erica - maybe group could vote on the validity of participation

Jehan - what does membership mean? what do you do to get it?

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

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?

Troy - complexities with core principles we adhere to;

Marc - this is a problem we should discuss when we have more money than we
have rent

Matt - in favor of parallel threads / do-ocracy - but we should stay on
point (reiterating Marc)
[edit<http://hackerspaces.org/w/index.php?title=Sudo_room/06-20-2012_Meetup&action=edit&section=7>
] Consensus-Process

What is consensus?

   - turn-taking vs. taking stack vs. discussion
   - consensus is based on the concept of consent
   - consensus vs voting
      - --> voting is a process where a group of people choose among
      various options
      - --> consensus is a collaborative process of decision-making where
      the group together chooses a path they consent to
      - --> shaped like an inverted triangle: problem ascertained and
      clarified, proposal(s) suggested
   - "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)
   - "con-scent" - to feel together (evan-etymology)
   - -N-1 model: almost everyone agrees (depends on how the group is)
   - -in a 100% consensus model, 1 person can block; in an N-1 model, 2
   people can block
      - -->you can only really block if you're willing to stay engaged in
      the process of solving the problem
   - -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

Evan: where there are factions, so be it, let it be - which is harder, but
not an imposition

Troy: no living system can exist without diversity

Eddan: having the right kind of decision-making process for different
things

Evan: Beyond geographical, to mental locality for decision-making to occur;
aggregates around popular ideas, rather than final decisions

Erica: Delegate consensus among working groups that have primary concern
over certain matters

Max: Benevolent dictators tend to take on the leadership roles in
"consensus" models

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

Rachel: Types of agenda items include: Decisions that have to get made;
announcements; discussion items; group therapy.

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

Rachel: Working groups create potentially more intimate relationships for
those wishing to work together on a project

Ibrahim: Perhaps we could designate the working groups as Sudo Art, Sudo
Design, Sudo Whatever...

Eddan: Sudo groups get open thinking but no decisions without consensus

Evan: We can easily reach consensus if we understand each other

Jenny: ...and keep together the sense of the community

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?

Troy: Consensus can be achieved independently without others dissenting?

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

Tracy: What is the procedure to come through consensus?

Victoria: Impressed that we have a history of agreeing to do things and
doing them

Eddie concurs we should just do stuff and form our own committees

Rachel: the 20% minority point is the reason for consensus; what is the
decision about, and how much are individual actors willing to act?

   - ---> 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.

Marina: Let's not digress - the perils of consensus = over-deliberation

Eddan: We should focus on particular processes wrt consensus

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

   - --> Vision, Mission/Purpose, Goals, Strategies, Actions and Behaviors

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!

Eddan: Yes, we can transfer a lot of these discussions online - also
pseudonymity is very important for edge voices to contribute to the
conversation

Marc: We should try one model out, stick with it for awhile, and then
analyze it

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

Troy: "Gotta learn to walk before we fly"

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.

Evan: Voluntaryism!

Eddan: Commons-based Peer Production!

What things do we need to decide upon?

   - Timeline Structure:
   - Who makes decisions

Sources:

   - Peter Gelderloos: Consensus

Also:

TALK
ON
IRC on
 FREENODE #sudocynics
 http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=sudocynics


--------
Jenny
http://jennyryan.net
http://thepyre.org
http://thevirtualcampfire.org
http://technomadic.tumblr.com

`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
 "Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories."
-Laurie Anderson

"Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."
 -Hannah Arendt

"To define is to kill. To suggest is to create."
-Stéphane Mallarmé
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/sudoroom/attachments/20120622/34989711/attachment.html>