Again, sorry for a second reply; I should start using drafts... I think that I understand the concerns of choosing Voting over Consensus, and that it boils down to a perception that we need to make decisions quickly.
I feel that it is in SYNHAK's best interest to make high quality decisions that practically everyone can support instead of fast decisions that only some people can support. There is absolutely nothing keeping a member from leaving if they feel that the space is in a rush to ignore their concerns. A suggestion or list of suggestions of when these quick decisions are needed would help me understand better. On Friday, March 21, 2014 07:48:47 Torrie Fischer wrote: > On Friday, March 21, 2014 07:23:40 Steve Radonich IV wrote: > > So I have been reading through this discussion topic and taking in > > everything that has been said in the debate of Consensus vs Voting. I have > > given this a lot of thought and feel that I may have come up with a > > solution to this whole issue. I have tried to keep it in line with > > sticking > > to consensus as much as possible, while providing a way after long and > > careful debate to move forward with a Membership application or Proposal > > while still having some that disagree. I would love to hear feedback on > > what everyone thinks of it, and am more than willing to go into further > > detail about my choice for certain decision in crafting this proposal. I > > will copy it into the message below, as well as link to a PDF form if you > > find it too difficult to read in the e-mail. Formatting on the email will > > probably be messed up so I would recommend looking at the PDF as it make > > is > > much easier to read. PDF version is available here: > > http://ubuntuone.com/2FaD11sRVOEzUOObTDvq0P > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.) Membership applications or > > Proposals may be accepted by the Membership of SYNHAK as long > > as no > > > Member, in good standing, blocks any such action. If a SYNHAK Member, > > in good standing, wishes to block a Membership application or > > Proposal the reason to block must fall under one of > > the following > > > categories: > > A.) Make a specific reference to any > > > > violation of SYNHAK Code, Policy or By-Laws that > > the Proposal or > > > potential Member might be in conflict with > > > > B.) Make a specific reference to any > > > > violations of 26 US Code Section 501(c)(3) or > > Section 509(a)(2) > > > C.) Make a specific reference to any > > > > violations of Federal, State, or Local law or > > regulations that > > > are applicable > > > > D.) If it is a Proposal, make an > > > > alternate Proposal, or modification to the Proposal in > > question, > > > that aims to correct any issues with the current one > > > > E.) If it is a Membership > > > > application, explain verifiable evidence as to why that person > > > > does not deserve to be a Member based on any > > personal or > > > professional experience you have with the > > person in question > > > Failure to meet any of the criteria > > > > above would result in the Proposal or Membership application process > > to continue as stated in the SYNHAK By-Laws. > > > > 2.) Should the preceding criteria be > > > > met the issues should be discussed among the attending > > membership > > > at the meeting until no further constructive comments/opinions are > > made, and the discussion continued on the member > > mail list in the > > > week leading up to the next meeting. > > > > 3.) During the following meeting (the > > > > “2nd meeting”) the issue will be brought up again: > > A.) If all issues or complaints have > > > > been properly dealt with, and the Member or > > Members, in good > > > standing, withdraw their block on a Membership application > > or > > > Proposal then the process is to continue as stated in the SYNHAK > > By-Laws. > > > > B.) If however, the Member or > > > > Members, in good standing, do not withdraw their block > > due to > > > their belief their reasons stated in the previous meeting were not > > properly addressed. The Membership application > > or Proposal will > > > be blocked for another week with further > > discussion at the > > > meeting with the Members in attendance, and on the members > > mail > > > list. > > > > 4.) During the following meeting (the > > > > “3rd meeting”) the issue will be brought up again: > > A.) If all issues or complaints have > > > > been properly dealt with, and the Member or > > Members, in good > > > standing, withdraw their block on a Membership application > > or > > > Proposal then the process is to continue as stated in the SYNHAK > > By-Laws. > > > > B.) If however, the Member or > > > > Members, in good standing, do not withdraw their block > > due to > > > their belief their reasons stated in the previous meetings were not > > > > properly addressed the following will take place: > > I.) A final discussion period will > > > > take place where all further issues will be > > discussed until > > > either: > > 1.) A consensus is met in favor of, > > > > or against, the Membership application > > or Proposal. > > > or > > > > 2.) 15% or more of the attending > > > > Membership move to have a show of > > hands of those in favor of, > > > or against, the Membership application > > or Proposal. The > > > following can happen based on the show of > > hands: > > a.) If 86% or more of the > > > > Membership in attendance is in favor of > > the Membership > > > application or Proposal then the process is > > to continue as > > > stated in the SYNHAK By-Laws. > > Bylaws don't say anything about proposals. Sure they say we've got the right > to vote on membership applications, but I'm no longer comfortable with that > route. The questions asked interview process have the possibility of having > no real impact. > > I imagine asking someone questions and finding out that they're a raging > transphobe, but the majority of the people present at the meeting who fail > to understand the gravity of my concerns think "haha, they're funny". > > I certainly would not be comfortable with their membership without being > able to block and then further getting to know them. > > > b.) If 15% or more of the > > > > Membership in attendance is against the > > Membership application > > > or Proposal then it is blocked for > > one more week. > > > II.) The decision of the Membership > > > > in attendance is carried out with no further > > argument or > > > discussion on the topic at hand. > > > > 5.) If the Membership application or > > > > Proposal is blocked again with a 15% or more vote of the > > > > Membership in attendance then the issue will be > > discussed in the > > > meeting, and on the member mail list, for a maximum of 4 > > weeks > > > after the vote during the 3rd meeting. During each > > meeting leading up to the 4th week the issue will be put > > up for discussion following the same process as outlined > > in > > > section 4. Should it reach the 4th week the Membership > > application or Proposal will be put up for a vote, requiring a > > minimum of 76% or more of Membership in attendance vote > > in favor > > > to pass, or 25% or more of Membership in attendance vote > > against > > > it to fail. > > I'm still not convinced that voting is an effective method of getting the > support of everyone. > > Again, if 50% support a decision for something such as "replacing the > ceiling in the palm room" (you know, the crappy half), 49% vote against it, > and the only people able or willing to invest any effort into replacing the > ceiling and seeing the job through vote against it, how does the ceiling > get replaced?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
