[sudo-discuss] Spiritual analysis of last weeks Meeting

[Tommy York]

I think the reason that we're going through this challenging,
time-consuming, but (in my opinion) ultimately worthwhile process is that
even in a space with this kind of aspirational goal - of universal mutual
respect - we experienced conflict where the process to resolve that
conflict felt worse than anything like this discussion around the articles.
We were unclear on our process, it got kind of messy, and now we want to
create a process that can handle  similar kinds of conflict in the future.

I like Matt's calling the working group a "Constitutional Convention
Committee;" in my mind, it evokes a kind of living document that allows us
to best collaboratively govern the space. We're all committed to it, and
it's ultimately for the benefit of the space to go through the process of
amending the document or not.

- Tommy
-----------------
Thomas Riley York (杨德民) 510.926.0510
http://www.linkedin.com/in/tommyyork


On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Representation is just another bureaucratic process that takes up time
> and doesn't ultimately matter.
>
> All that matters is creating a culture where people respect each
> other, where everyone feels safe, and where improper behaviors come
> with real consequences.
>
> Rules can create explicit delineations around cultural standards -- a
> bit like setting yourself reminders to take your vitamin C and brush
> your teeth -- but without the spirit in place to WANT to "become"
> those things, the rules are pointless.
>
> And when you have the spirit in place, the rules become redundant.
>
> --Naomi
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Anon195714 <anon195714 at sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Case in point of the cultural item I wrote about yesterday in this
> > thread, that most hackers are more interested in hacking than in
> > political/administrative tasks.
> >
> > Which to my mind supports the case for a representative structure rather
> > than trying to engage everyone in tasks that many will find are tedious
> > and even incomprehensible.  Those who have the expertise and the frame
> > of mind to take on issues such as revisions of bylaws and so on, should
> > be encouraged and formally recognized to do so.
> >
> > Re."rules":  There's rules and there's rules, and there's agreements
> > among consenting adults.
> >
> > Nobody here would think it amusing to try to hack a rule that forbids
> > physical aggression against others, e.g. "Hmm, if I just discretely push
> > someone so they fall down, and then claim it was an accident, can I tie
> > up the group with a six-hour meeting about this and still end up keeping
> > my membership?"  Or rather, it would be a paradigm case of the most
> > obnoxious kind of trolling.
> >
> > Same case about serving alcohol to people under 21 who might be at
> > events.  That carries the risk of the place getting shut down or
> > otherwise subjected to external legal sanctions.
> >
> > In the end, we're self-governing, so the "rules" we make are _agreements
> > among consenting adults_.
> >
> > -G.
> >
> >
> > =====
> >
> >
> > On 13-03-19-Tue 2:28 PM, Naomi Most wrote:
> >> Look, here's the problem with deliberating long hours over bureaucracy
> >> in a hacker organization:
> >> Greetings lovelies,
> >>
> >> If I may step in with some perspective based on about a decade of
> >> hanging out in hacker groups...
> >>
> >> Hackers' primary M.O. is GETTING AROUND RULES.
> >>
> >> So, if you, on an individual level, enjoy making up rules and getting
> >> semantics perfect, you should do that... as a project... on your own
> >> time.
> >>
> >> Because I guarantee you that *at least* those 11 people who abstained
> >> last week, plus several more I'm sure, were sitting there completely
> >> disengaged from that special interest project, because it is not
> >> fundamentally interesting.
> >>
> >> Why is it not interesting?  Well, for something to be interesting, it
> >> has to feel as though it actually affects you.
> >>
> >> If you believe that rules are made for getting-around, then of what
> >> interest is it, really, what the content of those rules actually is?
> >>
> >> I can make some strong arguments as to why front-loading your
> >> rules-making in a hacker culture is a waste of time at best, and
> >> dangerous at worst.  (One example: some of the people who are most
> >> interested in the letter of the law turn out to be the most interested
> >> in twisting it to their own ends.)
> >>
> >> But to be honest, I'd rather get back to hacking.
> >>
> >> I'll see some of you tonight for sudo room radio stuff.  Many of you I
> >> will not see for radio stuff, because it may not be of interest.  :)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Naomi
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Naomi Theora Most
> naomi at nthmost.com
> +1-415-728-7490
>
> skype: nthmost
>
> http://twitter.com/nthmost
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130319/891e8e08/attachment.html>