But, I think the ability of a some higher status folks to shoot down conversation is upsetting and precisely WHY consensus didn't work for me, in almost exactly the way that Elena describes.

Here's how I'm coming at this though: Taking a day or two off from a particular dicussion seems like the lesser of two evils. Some people want to discuss, others are aggravated with the discussion. If we take a break, the people who feel like they have a lot to say still can write down notes or something, and just say their piece after a resting period. I mean, right? Are people actually going to feel alienated by not talking for a day or two? If we don't take a break, it seems like there are people who are going to be alienated by the continuing discussion.

I don't know.

I just desperately feel that if we could get these basic procedures hammered out, we won't have to revisit them, and future decisions can be made more smoothly, in whatever way.

sigh

But, I think the ability of some higher status folks to shoot down conversation is upsetting and precisely WHY consensus didn't work for me, in almost exactly the way that Elena describes.

I asked for a break just because I still think there's a fair amount of consensus required here before things get taken to a ballot, and I didn't see that agreement. I think the best chance for everybody to be at least comfortable with a new round of voting would be to stop discussing the voting details for a while.

But, honestly, maybe this is part of leaning into discomfort. Maybe talking about the things which are hard is what makes it a safe place to just natter.

You can lean so far into discomfort that other people want to get away from you. Personally, I'm itchy to resolve the voting issues because I still believe having that settled will be helpful. However, separate from my want, I am seeing not merely discomfort but genuine alienation arising from this talk. I don't think that hashing out voting methodology is where we should break the back of the board.

If there is any place where I think we could use continued discussion, it would be back to the broader issue of how we see this board. And maybe that should be in Natter rather than Bureaucracy. The schism I'm seeing seems significant.

Jesse, it's not that I have a burning urge to discuss it. And at this point, I am not discussing the voting anyhow (in the words of a former boss, I've moved from the problem at hand to process). My issue is a more of a general one -

I think the ability of a some higher status folks to shoot down conversation is upsetting and precisely WHY consensus didn't work for me, in almost exactly the way that Elena describes.

It's not this conversation, but conversations in general. That's what I am chaffing about. I don't care if we vote ever again at all. I don't care if we are talk 'til we're blue in the face. I am concerned that "two (or three or four) people on the board at the same time reached the decision to shelve discussion" and poof it was done.

It's happened numerous times (when Burrell got pissed on WX, for example, about the circular discussion and Shawn called her on it or anytime politics comes up) and I'm worried that we make it okay for those with higher status to shush people when they are uncomfortable, regardless of how the people shushed feel.

And now I'm frustrated with Cindy because I said that I'd write up a clear example but instead of waiting she wrote two long posts that I stopped reading halfway through because this -- "In this hypothetical, nobody's first choice got eliminated." -- tells me that she still doesn't get how it works.

This is exactly where we got into trouble -- a bullshit "consensus" of people who were reading the Bureaucracy thread at noon EST

I agree completely. And that's why we need voting. But yes, let's take some time and not discuss.

If we take a break, the people who feel like they have a lot to say still can write down notes or something, and just say their piece after a resting period.

Yes, this.

However, separate from my want, I am seeing not merely discomfort but genuine alienation arising from this talk.

But Hec, I'm alienated by the alienation.

Which sounds stupid, but it's true. Every time an issue which makes people uncomfortable comes up, we do get shushed. I AM GUILTY OF THE SHUSHING.

If there is any place where I think we could use continued discussion, it would be back to the broader issue of how we see this board.

Is it okay never to discuss abortion because it pisses off Plei? Is it okay to never bitch about GWB becuse it pisses off VW? Is it okay never to vent about people becaus it pisses me off?

I totally agree with this, but I don't think it's a Natter issue. It may not be a bureacracy one either. I don't have a solution and I have 33 kids about to pile into my room. So I can't think about further.

I am concerned that "two (or three or four) people on the board at the same time reached the decision to shelve discussion" and poof it was done.

But it wasn't done.

The whole question of "higher status people" or whatever makes me feel like what we really need to do is make everyone feel like their voice can be heard. I don't know how you do that.

I totally agree with this, but I don't think it's a Natter issue.

Anything is a Natter issue. The antidote to shushing is discussing. We've had serious issues addressed in Natter before. Sometimes it takes up a big chunk of space and people skip around and that's just the way it is.

I wouldn't mind a substantive discussion about these issues that wasn't wrapped up in practical implications of methodology, but larger notions of what people like and prefer about how the community works. I think the people that reluctantly voted for voting are feeling a little railroaded now. Maybe they're not, but I would like to give more space to people like Liese and Ple who don't like this direction. Because I want to hear those voices. And I want any solutions that we come up with to be informed by that kind of debate.

Natter is, to my mind, the best place for it since that's as close as we've got to a public square. It's where people chatter and gossip, but it's also a good place for having an open talk. Just my opinion.

I've got to take Emmett to school. I'll check back later.

I'm perfectly capable of understanding the mathematics of why Australian balloting more accurately represents the preferences of the populace. However, I think it is overkill for resolving friendly disputes among an educated population over matters of NO IMPORT WHATSOEVER.

Exactly!

And Betsy, are we only going to use this for matters of no import whatsoever?

That's not been my impression.

What matters of import are there? This is neither the nation of Australia nor the city of Cambridge. It's a posting board, a community consisting of about 200 - 300 regular posters. We're not going to war, we don't have taxes. Our biggest question is going to be, "Should there be a thread for such and such a subject?"

But this is the exact problem! The 5 or 10 people who were around for one set of a couple of hours were coming to a consensus, but then a different 5 or 10 people were around for a different set of a couple of hours, and they didn't agree. This is exactly where we got into trouble -- a bullshit "consensus" of people who were reading the Bureaucracy thread at noon EST (or whatever).

When I was fiddling with the posting statistics last night, I ran the stats for this thread. Since we started this discussion after coming back from WX, there have been a bit over 1500 posts here. Of those, about a thousand of them are split up among only 14 people. Two thirds of the discussion has been among 14 people. That really isn't much more than your 5 or 10 people.

The thing is, I don't think it makes a bit of difference whether we vote or do consensus or preferences or whatever. We voted to hold the F2F in LA, and I still felt sort of railroaded by the way that went. Someone is always going to be disappointed with the outcome. I just happened to think that the simpler the better, because in the cosmic scheme of things, what we do here just doesn't matter a whole lot.

edited for typos

When I was fiddling with the posting statistics last night, I ran the stats for this thread. Since we started this discussion after coming back from WX, there have been a bit ove 1500 posts here. Of those, about a thousand of them are split up among only 14 people. Two thirds of the discussion has been among 14 people. That really isn't much more than your 5 or 10 people.

Thanks, DX.

I'd kiss you for posting this, but I've got morning mouth.