Alex: I'm sure we could incorporate some sort of digital voting. My feelings on the matter are this: We are a physical space. Meetings happen once a week for on average 50 minutes. We have significant online presence for members, associate members, and friends of the space to voice their concerns. At some point members need to come to the space otherwise why are they giving us money and filling out paperwork? Additionally, we already allow for proxy voting with no limit on representation so long as the intention is made known.
Regarding the wording of the proposal: ** Not everyone has to agree with the reason for a block to be valid, it just has to be clearly stated. I understand the sentiment behind the phrasing but there's enough wiggle room here for unintended consequences. I have no solution to the issue. Not everyone will agree concerns are valid. There should be a set of criteria that define a valid block so we don't end up with 3 people who hate Jersey Shore blocking any applications from New Jersey Natives. * 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 range from saving the space from immanent disaster and financial ruin to releasing funds to paint the bike shed. 6 weeks is a long time. Perhaps a shorter time should be considered, though with the current rules it takes 6 days(minutes 10-30/2012) for a proposal to be brought to a vote/consensus -AFTER- the wording has been agreed on. Even if we allow for 'emergency' board action as a stopgap we've only bought ourselves a day since all board meetings and agendae(was this codified?) must be announced 5 days in advance. Sure, we want to avoid scenarios where an active minority out-participate the majority just as we want to keep the majority from brute forcing the minority but 6 weeks is a long time for a decision that impacts how the community and perhaps the corporation conduct themselves. Is a complex majority the answer, 66, 75, 80, 90% ? There's already a degree of uncertainty in that voting only counts members present. Granted as was brought up tonight, perhaps an oversimplification, if someone doesn't attend the meeting or arrange for a proxy their feelings on the matter weren't all that strong. Torrie: As a clarification; How are we going to decide on this matter? Your email seems to indicate we currently operate as majority(mob?) rule and the overall desire is to change that. I'm inferring from your stance at the meeting that you want consensus(100% agreement/support) in the matter but I don't want to put words in your mouth. regards, Andrew L On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Justin Herman <just...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the risk of sounding confrontational, you have asked for feedback... > > I have real reservations with this proposal. IMO this will create a > blockade where the strong willed get their way and those with less time to > commit to arguing will give up or quit synhak all together. Even with the > limited blocking option added in I question WHY. Why should 1 person be > able to hold the entire org hostage to make action? > > Voting does create a winning side and losing side. But it is fair. Every > member in good standing is allowed 1 vote and only 1 vote. If the majority > decides to accept a member why should one person get to decide that it > should be blocked? One person does not decide the path of SynHak, the group > does. Not everyone is going to be "happy" with all decisions. The path to > playing nicely and being excellent is accepting that the group feels > differently than you and moving forward. Not all decisions can be forced > into consensus, esp when the group grows beyond a handful of people (as we > have). Our views, disciplines, and experiences are diverse, let us accept > that, hear the pov, and allow the voice of the group decide how we move > forward. > > Our discussion process and proposal process provides for a clear and > transparent method for showing different points of views even if all views > are of the same opinion (OMG new person is super cool). Then the membership > can make a decision with all views (members and non-members) expressed. > > Respectfully, > > Justin > > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Torrie Fischer <tdfisc...@hackerbots.net > > 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@synhak.org > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
