Alright, so here's another option. We go the way of the Quakers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Quaker-Based_model
In addition to addressing the issue of blocking proposals indefinitely, it mitigates my dislike of the moderator acting as though they're running a meeting. The moderator should serve the membership, not run the show. It also lets us abandon the concept of the talking stick and the perception that we need to make rebuttals to each other all the time. On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 23:31:27 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.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
