I'm not sure which thread discussing consensus decision making people will read but this is the one with the actual proposal in it so I'm posting this here. The majority of our proposals in previous meetings have been agreed on 100% so regardless of which form of decision making was used they were indistinguishable. I don't want to exclude anyone anymore than anyone else but there will come a topic in which someone will block it for no real reason. Sure we can say they are unexcellent and go through the process of member removal but that is a long drawn out affair(for a good reason) and really reflects poorly on the state of the 'space if we have to use it.
>* Proposals or membership applications may be accepted by the Membership of SYNHAK as long as nobody blocks any such application. If we can change the wording to '..as long as no member in good standing of Syn/Hak ...' this looks good. >** Not everyone has to agree with the reason for a block to be valid, it just has to be clearly stated. I strongly feel there should be qualifications for a prolonged block. Since things are scattered around I've reposted my thoughts for consideration: A block for one week may be put in place by any member in good standing for any reason on any proposal being decided. The option to renew this block after one week must meet the following criteria: A) An alternate solution must be proposed B) The block must specify applicable violations of the Syn/Hak, INC Bylaws C) The block must specify applicable violations of 26 US Code Section 501(c)(3) or Section 509(a)(2) D) The block must specify applicable violations of Federal, State, or Local law >* Blocked membership applications or proposals with the support of at least three total members may be blocked indefinitely. I realize this is for scenarios where an axe-murderer, terrorist, or other ne'er-do-well wants to become a member. I realize some people are exceptionally good at hiding their past/current intentions but I have faith in our community not to sponsor most of these people. As it reads there is room for abuse. We have in the past declared proposals as bad ideas(tm) and not passed them. There needs to be a sunset on the time a proposal is considered active. Having an indefinite block implies the proposal is still being considered. A mechanism to fail or otherwise not pass proposals needs to exist. regards, Andrew L On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Torrie Fischer <tdfisc...@hackerbots.net>wrote: > On Thursday, March 20, 2014 03:28:21 Andrew Buczko wrote: > > "feel" ? > > > > It's a system, you use it to make decisions. > > 1> an proposal is brought up. > > 2> we talk on it / make changes / corrections. > > 3> we vote for it or against it. > > > > Step two is the step where we could split the proposal to accommodate > > every one if there are two schools of thought. > > > > Spending four months talking about your problems is no way to run a group > > Andy > > We're a lot more than some vague "group", we're a community of people who > have > a primary focus of getting along and working together. Feelings matter. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Torrie Fischer > > > > <tdfisc...@hackerbots.net>wrote: > > > On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 01:24:20 Andrew Buczko wrote: > > > > I do not see consensus working as the group grows larger, we need to > > > > vote > > > > and be done with the mater at hand. > > > > > > Why do you feel that voting is the better way for us to decide things? > > > > > > > We can always write new proposals to deal with changes that come in > the > > > > future. > > > > > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@synhak.org > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
