[sudo-discuss] Spiritual analysis of last weeks Meeting

Wed Mar 20 09:33:41 PDT 2013

Fair enough,

And, I mean, I'm on board with that.

One other thought:  I think one way we could look at that is similar to a
requirements phase on an agile project:  You have a tiger team up
front(political philosophy people, people with expertise in community org,
et all) to set parameters, and then you make the people who write the
document the content owners, and overall product owners.

Intake comes from all users via email to the product owners, goes into the
document, and most of that could happen offline, and if people object we
take a vote on issues.  I'm a big fan of voting, and don't know why we
don't do it.  If it keeps the meetings under 45 mins, I won't miss a
meeting.

-Rusty

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Naomi Most <pnaomi at gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, so, because it seems to have been assumed that I think
> rules/guidelines/articles/whatever are unnecessary, I shall
> paraphrase.
>
> The people who should be working on the
> rules/guidelines/articles/whatever are the people who are interested
> in these things.
>
> The people who come to general meetings shouldn't be expected to care
> as deeply (or at all).
>
> General Meetings, in general, set the tone for the culture.  Watch how
> you apportion time, because the most time-expensive things you make
> everybody do are the things people come to expect more of.
>
> Start as you mean to go on.  Embrace the awesome.  Backchannel the tedious.
>
> That's pretty much all I'm saying here.
>
> --Naomi
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 3:28 PM, rusty lindgren <rustylindgren at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Naomi,
> >
> > I understand where you are coming from, but I think hackers are sometimes
> > very naive and get taken advantage of, and have no way out.
> >
> > So, while those are certainly good foundations for a good group of people
> > that you mention, I do think it's short-sighted to assume we don't need
> any
> > protections.  As a point of fact, this all started with our first problem
> > between members, and with no process, it could have been worse, even
> though
> > we don't see it that way.  Mob rule is also scary.
> >
> > Where I will side with you is not that this is ego driven, but that not
> > everyone has the same writing skill-set, so this seems a bit ivory tower
> of
> > us to keep going to this extent, and I guess I missed that angle in
> > Patrick's response. Everyone owns their discourse, and I think the
> mistake
> > is to write one off for the other, and instead we should be focusing on
> how
> > other people can get involved and how we can make this process more
> > achievable for everyone, documenting perspectives rather than going down
> > that road.  But, I don't think this is an intentional thing by any of the
> > members, and we shouldn't be trying to put strain on eachother.
> >
> > I also think having a formal process isn't necessarily different from
> hacker
> > tools are effectively leveraged against problems.  Why even build
> frameworks
> > for coding, if in "real life" we can't also use frameworks.
> >
> > -Rusty
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Rusty Lindgren
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Naomi Theora Most
> naomi at nthmost.com
> +1-415-728-7490
>
> skype: nthmost
>
> http://twitter.com/nthmost
>

-- 
Cheers,

Rusty Lindgren
**

-- 
Cheers,

Rusty Lindgren
**
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130320/73cc53e2/attachment.html>