[sudo-discuss] Spiritual analysis of last weeks Meeting

[Andrew]

I think it's important to keep in mind that what's being debated here
aren't new "rules", but an update to the process of conflict resolution and
a new position to help make that happen.

Also keep in mind that this is in reaction to a very real situation where
the conflict resolution process failed to work in almost every way. It is
not an arbitrary rules making sesh based on some hypothetical.

--Andrew


On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Tommy York <tommy.york at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>


-- 
---------
Andrew Lowe
http://www.lostways.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130319/3ce3dd97/attachment.html>