Autonomía digital y tecnológica

Código e ideas para una internet distribuida

Linkoteca. comunidades digitales

Warnock’s Dilemma is the situation described by Bryan Warnock in an August 2000 post to a Usenet group:

“The problem with no response is that there are five possible interpretations:

‘The post is correct, well-written information that needs no follow-up commentary. There’s nothing more to say except “Yeah, what he said.”
‘The post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste the energy or bandwidth to even point this out.
‘No one read the post, for whatever reason.
‘No one understood the post, but won’t ask for clarification, for whatever reason.
‘No one cares about the post, for whatever reason.”

Decision Protocol: Consensus

For formal decisions, Enspiral uses consensus decision-making, a methodology with a specific meaning and practice. Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement or engagement from everyone on all decisions. The key concept is consent (you can live with it), which is distinct from agreement (it’s your preference or first choice).

Making Formal Decisions

Anyone can propose a formal decision at any time. We seek open, transparent decision-making and strive to enable the people who are affected by a decision to participate as fully as possible in making it. Enspiral tries to make decisions with the widest possible circle of participants, while recognising the necessity and wisdom of delegating responsibility for certain decisions.

Formal decisions are needed for the following areas (some with the whole network, some with a subset of people or by a process which has been delegated by an Agreement).

Agreements – creating new rules about how Enspiral works
Brand – using the Enspiral logo and identity publicly
Money – spending collective funds or for actions that impact our financial outlook
Tools & Processes – how the network as a whole will work and communicate
Relationships – commitments as a network with individuals or entities (such as invitations to membership, appointing directors, MOUs with ventures or other entities)
Buy-in & Awareness – when seeking a shared sense of ownership and support from the network as a whole

The idea of lazy consensus can basically be described as: “Silence is consent”1). It is used as a decision making tool in larger groups of individuals.

The lazy consensus is a very effective tool to speed up development processes, may it be the development of OSS in an online community or the implementation of a new project step in a company. It gives every group member the equal chance to object, if necessary.

Since silence is considered to be consent, it is not obvious, how many members of the respective group have even seen the post, or read the article, or learned about the idea in question (known as Warnock’s Dilemma). The concept of the lazy consensus requires an active community in order to receive enough interest and, if necessary, adequate critical objections.

When using the lazy consensus, there is also a certain risk of receiving decisive objections at an advanced state of the project, implementation, or development. This might cause some turbulence that could have been avoided with another decision taking process.

En informática, bus Factor o (Factor Autobús) es un término usado en proyectos de desarrollo de software, que alude a una gran cantidad de información vital de un proyecto de software limitada solamente a uno o unos pocos desarrolladores, impidiendo la continuación del proyecto en el hipotético caso de que estos desarrolladores clave sean atropellados por un autobús.

It’s easier for a successful volunteer Free Software project to get money than it is to decide how to spend it. While paying developers is easy, it can carry unintended negative consequences. This essay explores problems and benefits of paying developers in volunteer free and open source projects and surveys strategies that projects have used to successfully finance development while maintaining their volunteer nature.

quizás haya que ir dando por concluida la famosa regla del “ Don’t feed the troll”. Ya sabemos que Twitter (especialmente ésta) es un lugar tendente al troleo y a los zascas. Desconozco si es la configuración de la herramienta o si un devenir social. Pero es así.

he podido darme el lujo de usar la educación y la pedagogía extremas porque no sufro esto non-stop. Puedo imaginarme a una persona rendida ante tanto odio y decidiendo luchar en vez de intentar convencer a nadie a través de la palabra.

En lo que no me cabe duda es que la polarización puede ser neutralizada así. Hubo varias personas que tras haberme hablado mal terminaron disculpándose por ello tras ver que yo solo contestaba de forma educada. Por eso creo que necesitamos defender la radicalidad de la no-violencia. Necesitamos generar entornos digitales habitables que permitan una discordia educada.