>> Take me for example, I believe that if you are born a certain sex than you >> will always be that sex, no matter what you do change your appearance on >> the outside. > >Thats not a fight I'm getting in to. > >I'm done with this conversation.
Good because that's not what this thread is intended for, but I can see you completely refused to address my point because I said something that you didn't like. Once again proving my point that you are the one being closed minded and un-excellent. >> To write on an m&m - consensus by each week changing a few swing voters >> until the minority that truly believes just quits for the good of the hive >> - vs - if consensus cannot be reached within a few weeks vote and move on. >> (It's a big m&m) >> >> You are never going to convince me to have all computers in the space be >> linux, or to disown a member for acting in good faith. How is squelching >> the minority with a vote different from doing so by wearing them down over >> weeks/months? > >The consensus process isn't meant to wear someone down. If someone is >repeatedly bringing up an issue that everyone else agrees does not benefit the >space in any way, they need to realize that they are motivated by personal >feelings and emotion more than a desire to contribute to the forward progress >of the space. They should step aside. Making consensus work requires that >everyone understands when they should step aside and instead focus on the >space instead of personal wants. > >Refusing to acknowledge that is a perfectly valid reason to exclude someone >from the consensus process. The group should kindly request that they either >explain why they aren't motivated by personal reasons or else leave the >community. Coming from the person that was fighting tooth and nail about the contract with Justin's business when you were pretty much the only one that had a problem with it and everyone else said it was fine. That is pretty darned funny. >> I agree entirely that consensus is the better option for most issues, but >> what if, after a run of thefts from the space, a minimum income for >> membership was proposed? The only way to convince me would be if my >> holding out was destroying the space. > >If there is a run of thefts, a minimum income won't solve that. Diligence of >the membership to make sure that you don't let people like that in is the >solution. Should they happen to get in, it is up to all of us to stop someone >from stealing things. > >That exact situation is even described on the wiki: > > Aren't you afraid of people abusing the free price? > Not really. The first rule of SYNHAK is Be Excellent to Each Other. Since > we are only open to non-members when members are present, it is up to the > members who are there to protect the space against unsavory elements. > Everyone is empowered to remove disruptive individuals if they are causing > problems or otherwise getting in the way of others using the space. >--https://synhak.org/wiki/When_we%27re_open I highly doubt Craig meant for this to be a real talking point in that's how we would deal with thefts, but was instead giving an example, how about you actually answer his question? >> This doesn't happen with voting, after all negotiations are clearly >> stalemated a vote happens and I loose. I take that I am in the minority, >> decide if I can continue to associate myself, and if so, move on (All >> within a month). Instead of, after months of being badgered,attacked,asked >> why then shot down when I try to explain, all to get me to consense against >> my morals & world view, leaving my key taped to the top of the microwave as >> I am too hated to be an asset to the space anymore. > >If you are being badgered, attacked, and repeatedly shot down for bringing up >a completely legitimate concern, you need to tell people about that. That is >incredibly unexcellent behavior. I realize that the champions aren't supposed >to handle these kinds of interpersonal conflicts, but talk to them. > >A Community Working Group would really solve that whole situation, but it is >pretty obvious that some folks would rather have more rules instead of a >pragmatic solution. I theorize that if we don't get a CWG established in the >next two months, we will be in for a lot of pain. > >I mean, we're just over two years old and already have had a few people bug >out and refuse to remain a part of the community because of poisonous people >and conflict resolution was not even attempted. I've come close to that myself >a few times. We have had discussions on a CWG and I think we all pretty much thought it was unneeded, though I am open for that discussion again, personally don't have a feeling on this one way or the other. But you need to understand that most of us are tired from the fight over Justin's company and feel completely undercut by a very small minority of the group who were completely wrong about an issue. >> >> On polarizing issues, such as a new member with views towards others >> directly incompatible, however shares the same goals as the group, and are >> house trained enough not to act on them: This is exactly what separates a >> club from something for the public. If we get 100 members I can guarantee >> a few of them are going to make me uncomfortable, key my car, and may sour >> my entire synhak experience causing me to start missing meetings, and stay >> away outside of my required Sundays. > >Thats no good! Not everyone would have that same reaction towards an >incompatible person. Do we want to have someone bring up banning people every >single week? Or throwing a huge fit on the mailing list for weeks at a time >because of the issues? Or forking and starting another hackerspace that >fragments the hacker community? Or a physical fight breaking out? > >Thats basically how the Double Union hackerspace started. A bunch of people >got fed up with the rampant sexism and other Bad Things at Noisebridge, so >they started their own space in the neighborhood. After about a month they had >to close membership applications because they were completely totally flooded >with newbies who were also fed up with Noisebridge. I have yet to hear anything about anyone wanting to ban anyone in the group so I'm not really sure where this is coming from here. We all get along even though we have different view points and experiences in life. The only un-excellent behavior in this regard has been yours to completely ignore the view points of those you do not agree with. We are a public resource and as such need to act like it, we are going to have members with vastly different views of our own and we just need to recognize that and get along inspite of it. If there are those that can't then they will have to be removed the group on an as needed basis, not bar people who believe opposite of you out right. >> >> An issue that I haven't heard much talk about: How big do you(everybody) >> want synhak to be? I won't start the quality vs quantity debate as that >> line is different for everyone, I'll just coughf out (once again) if >> everyone gets along we are a club of friends, not a public resource where >> people with similar goals come to achieve and make. Is being everyone's >> friend a requirement for membership? > >I want a safe place to hack. > >I don't care if everyone who uses the space is friends with everyone or not. > >I don't want to be a part of a community where I have to keep my guard up. >Thats the fastest way to push me away from anything. We currently (mostly) >have that. Theres folks who come to the space that I likely wouldn't invite to >have a drink with, but they don't push me away and make me feel unsafe. I'm >still able to have productive conversations with them without knowing that >they don't see me as an equal. My ideas still share equal weight as anyone >else's in their eyes. And yet you are against having anyone who might think differently about the transgender community as a member of our space? If that is how you feel then either we need to have a discussion on whether we are going to discriminate against those who have a set religious belief on an issue or not, because that is just as wrong as discriminating against a transexual in my book. >There are a *lot* of people who aren't poisonous to the community. The vast >overwhelming majority of humans fit into that group. > >We can have an unlimited number of members. I'd love for that. As an example, >I think KDE has something in the number of a few hundred contributors across >the entire community. Developers, IRC staff, forums, mailing list discussions, >bug triagers, sysadmins, etc, etc. Certainly there are some abrasive people. I >do not make an attempt to be around those folks too much. However, we don't >hate each other. I still feel comfortable around them, trust them, and can >collaborate with them. > >Part of our "similar goals" should be to create a safe space for all who want >to be a part of it. Do we really want to have newbies show up and say "Hey >this is a really awesome space with all these resources, but the people >friggin suck! Especially that one person who keeps making jokes about how >women belong in the kitchen." > >Transphobes, homophobes, misogynists, racists, anti-intellectuals, and so on. >Those aren't people that make a vibrant and healthy community. Without that >community, collaboration doesn't spontaneously spring forth and we end up >becoming just a building with tools in it and no shared sense of direction. Transphobes, homophobes, misogynists, racists, etc should only be a problem if they are openly hostile towards a specific group then they need to be taken care of on an individual basis. I'm against all of those and yet realize that we live in an imperfect world and will come into contact with such people and just need to get around it. The world doesn't cater to you or your feelings and the sooner your realize this the better off you'll be. -Steve
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
