Kind of random idea, can spiff incorporate a voting system, per membership?
------------------------------ On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 11:31 PM EDT Torrie Fischer wrote: > >The last few membership applications and proposals we've had, we've sometimes >used a vote, sometimes went with "does anyone raise issues"? > >This is going to be a bigger year for SYNHAK. I think we should consider >revisiting our consensus process to allow it to scale in a manner that helps >to maintain our shared spirit of experimentation, openness, and the >triumvirate of Consensus, Do-ocracy, and Excellence. > >I feel that one such vector is by stepping away from the trend of having >simple majority voting, or rather, any kind of vagueness on the definition of >consensus, as clearly evidenced in tonight's meeting. > >The original intent of our membership process was to "weed out the crazy >people". I think this should also be extended to include measures to weed out >people that might not fully understand what it means to be a member of SYNHAK >and have an active part in our governance process. I still maintain my opinion >that you can be as member as you want to be, however I wouldn't want new >members joining the space that we don't all /not/ dislike. It causes tension >and an increase in drama if there exists someone who creates pressure points. > >The same goes for our proposal process. Traditionally its been used to bring >about new rules, changes in protocol, etc. It often leads to a lot of arguing >and assumption of personal attacks, acting in bad faith, and shouting about >unexcellence. Voting always pits one side against another. It is an all or >nothing system. > >The purpose of weeding out people and ideas not universally accepted as >contributing to our common vision, whatever that may be, is to ensure that our >community works together as one. > >I'm not arguing that we shouldn't accept new members or ideas simply because >not everyone agrees with them 100%. However, if someone in the membership has >serious concerns about an applicant or proposal, I feel that there should be a >mechanism that addresses those concerns and ensures that everyone involved >ends up happy with the outcome, even if it is just one person. > >To use an extreme example: > >If we've got 100 members, and one knows that a new applicant is a sociopath >who has been kicked out of a bunch of other area organizations before, I think >they've got a right to step up and stop them from becoming a member. > >One person harboring bitter thoughts and resentment towards another does not >make a healthy and vibrant community. To quote Omar, "We don't all have to >like everyone, but we do need to get along." > >I would like to suggest that we adopt a modified consensus process in the form >of blocking with explanation. Here's a suggested protocol: > >---8<--- >* Proposals or membership applications may be accepted by the Membership of >SYNHAK as >long as nobody blocks any such application. >* If a SYNHAK member wishes to block a membership application or proposal, >they need to clearly state their reason for blocking. >** Not everyone has to agree with the reason for a block to be valid, it just >has to be clearly stated. >* Proposals and membership applications may be permitted to be blocked at any >point up until the membership application or proposal is approved, for as long >as six weeks. >* Proposals or membership applications may only be blocked for longer than six >weeks if there is support from at least two other members, meaning that a >total of three members must clearly state that they are blocking and why. >* Blocked membership applications or proposals with the support of at least >three total members may be blocked indefinitely. >--->8--- > >The purpose of a block is to prevent someone with some intense reservations >against a proposal from feeling completely screwed over by everyone else. > >If a total of three people (out of our current 20) share the same serious >reservations, I think they all should have the right to not experience an >environment that they do not feel comfortable with. > >In essence, this is a written protocol that defines how we come to Consensus. > >In closing, I want to remind everyone that we are building SYNHAK *together*. >We want to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that fosters >creativity. Using voting to decide how SYNHAK runs will *always* steamroll >someone, without exception. If there is a method for us to avoid conflict and >squashing others because a few people don't like the idea, it is necessary >that we consider it. > >Thoughts and feedback, please! > >Let me repeat that again, > >*THOUGHTS AND FEEDBACK, PLEASE!* > >To reiterate: > > READ THIS VVVVVV READ THIS > > >I am requesting that we discuss this proposal, as it is the spirit and a core >value of SYNHAK that we all come to a common agreement where nobody gets hurt. > > > READ THIS ^^^^^^ READ THIS > >I hope I was clear in stating that I am open to reaching consensus on this. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
