On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 02:08:55 Craig Bergdorf wrote: > My thoughts and feedback: > > I agree SynHak will likely have a busy year, hopefully we can say that > every year. We are sure to face other splits in opinion. This particular > issue is very one sided, with less than 20% on one side, but what about the > next one, where it is near 50%. I don't think it's possible to get people > to agree when arguments are deeply rooted and completely incompatible > (other than finer control of new members as mentioned).
That feels like an incredibly pessimistic view about our membership and hackers in general. It is always possible to come to a compromise, given enough discussion. Would you rather we all get along, or would you rather steamroll someone's opinion without even attempting to talk about it and make everyone happy? It is quite apparent that we already have some of those people in the membership - The kind who refuse to compromise at all costs, even if the other side is flailing their arms wildly and screaming "I WANT TO WORK WITH YOU ON THIS". The solution is to not let those sorts of people join, which is precisely why I asked those questions about what Consensus, Do-ocracy, and Excellence mean. We need to be more vigilant about that sort of stuff. > > Consensus is called for when things are analog, and concessions can be > made. Voting is for when that is not possible (such as our elections (you > can't elect someone on the condition they stop using apple products). If > we may choose between two or more courses of action that are incompatible, > say the leading projects for some grant money, or (an extreme example) to > burn down the space or to not burn down the space, there is no compromise > possible; there is no middle ground. This is not the debate we face, but > it's one were likely to encounter (the former). Correct; that is the only time I'm ok with voting. For just about everything else though, there are an infinite number of alternatives. Looking back at my previous proposal that is still on the table to spend a chunk of our grant money on AWS, there are a number of outcomes: * The proposal sails through unmodified * Through discussion, we determine that AWS isn't the best answer and that this money is better spent on another host * Through discussion, we determine that hosting isn't the best answer, and this money is better spent on another project * Through discussion, we decide that we don't want the grant at all and the money is returned to the ACF To take an example from your list, lets consider burning down the space. * The proposal sails through, and the space is burnt down * Through discussion, we all agree that burning down the space is not in our best interests as a community, so a number of people, likely more than three, block it. Space does not burn down, but they're still pretty upset. * Through discussion, we find out that the member in favor of burning down the space really just wants to have a fun place to play with pyrotechnics. Work starts so that we can build a pyromancy lab. Space does not burn down and everyone is happy. A requirement of consensus is that all issues are approached with a very open mind. At every proposal, we need to ask "Well, what if they're right? What could they say that would convince me to not block this?" If you're just going to block something and refuse to compromise (or at least say why), well, thats not excellent. I think we can all agree on that. > What alternatives other than a majority rule, dictator rule, or rolling a > dice exist for deciding between two correct but opposite answers? If my > choices are 3d printing a 'the decider' dice set, or for phong to be the > new commander/overlord of the space, I'll take what I think would make the > most people happy, after hearing all sides present their point of view, > doing what the most people have said will make them happy. As I understand > the intent of the bylaws, A member, after changing as many minds as > possible (through facts, debate, or threat) still only counts as one > member. First, I would never assume that there are only two correct but opposite answers. The point of consensus is finding a middle ground. If it came down to printing such a set of die or having Phong become ultimate overlord (isn't he already?), I wouldn't pick either. I'd talk with both sides and try to figure out a compromise. It doesn't make sense to pick one that "makes the most people happy", if the one that makes the most people happy hasn't been thought of: One where *everyone* is happy. > > I think the main problem with demanding consensus on every issue is the > time it takes to wear down those who simply don't agree. I strongly > believe we should all move as one whenever possible, as we have in the > past. Pulling over the space for a month over one issue keeps us from > moving at all. If the only concern is that "it takes us a long time to agree", thats not really much of an issue, is it? The process works out in the end. Everyone is happy. Calling for votes without a mechanism for feedback just squashes dissent and causes resentment. > > I like your proposal, it allows an individual to cry foul (although I think > 6 weeks is far too long) but I don't think it would be sufficient for this, > or other major splits. Perhaps one week, a member can cry out > eff-no/reconvene in a week(once and only once). I'm in favor of 6 weeks because, well, if you really are passionate enough about an issue, you'll likely be able to change someone's mind in a lot less than that. If you can't change their mind in six weeks and they haven't been able to find two others that also support them, then they're just being a stick in the mud. I'm ok with 4 weeks as well. > This will come up again, and at some point in our process I feel we need a > definitive 'timeout reached, answer is ___" system in place. A weekly > rehash of the same issue as you suggest, with the same 3 blocking it until > one switches opinion, leaves the space, or we all die does not fit this > need (imo). Thats the concept of the 6 week period. If one person and only one person has issue, then after 6 weeks, an answer is reached and a hard decision is made. > > Carefully, > Craig > > P.s. I think this phone ran out of commas. > > On Mar 19, 2014 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
