I concur. I think we just need to take what we have to take, and figure out how to increase our income or membership levels to pay for it.
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Colin Stanners <[email protected]> wrote: > Quick, not-directly-related comment: that we are having a long > discussion and maybe poll about the manner in which we will then take > a vote about how to enter into lease discussions with AW that will > lead into an actual, useful lease at some point later... It makes me > understand more why AW just went to the landlord and likely said 'fuck > it, the terms aren't great but we'll just do the lease right now'. > > > On 10/24/12, Mark Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > The board has said it will decide the order and wording of questions and > > overall voting system used to decide our fate next Tuesday. > > > > What follows is my attempt to advise the board publicly regarding the > > process. > > > > To make a long email short -- I propose 4 different ideas (which can be > > mixed and matched) re process here, you can find the quick summaries > > highlighted in the ---dash--- boxes I've put together. > > ---------------------------------- > > > > We are faced with many options re the future of our space. There is > > always the possibility when faced with more than two options that none > > of the options will enjoy majority support. > > > > (its been shown that no system can ever be created to ensure a majority > > supported option can be teased out of more than 2 options, I highly > > recommend reading the first part of this essay for a more detailed > > exploration: > > http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/%7Ejheath/Oldch11.pdf > > ) > > > > As such, we can only do our best to ensure the most powerful minority > > wins out at the end of the day (if there's no majority endorsed option) > > and hopefully not tear ourselves apart in the process. > > > > As the bible says, """Do take votes — the strongest minority wins over > > the weaker minorities"""" > > http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/The_Democracy_Pattern > > > > I'm concerned that a poor choice of process in the name of simplicity > > could bring about a result where the strongest minority fails to win and > > a smaller minority wins over. > > > > For example, there is a strong bias in favor of the "default" or "status > > quo" if we insist that a position other than the default must receive a > > large endorsement such as a majority. > > > > In our case, our default position is to be out in 6 months. Leaving is a > > legitimate proposition, but I believe it would be serious mistake to let > > that happen by default and not as a result of the members expressing > > that preference directly. > > > > A plurality winner vote (like we had for project funding) would also be > > a bad idea -- if the members are only granted one vote each and there > > are multiple "stay" options to choose from the option of leaving could > > come up the middle and amass a plurality even if a larger group is in > > favor of staying. Similarly, we're giving those in favor of staying a > > major advantage if we allow voting (once) on multiple options. > > > > In general, plurality voting systems work better for electing > > representatives (e.g. a board, a parliament) who then take on a range of > > decisions than they do for specific questions for direct democracy > moments. > > > > I would like to recommend that all of our options be put to some kind of > > preferential vote system, where we each rank our choices and the system > > churns through them and comes up with a result. > > > > For example, there's the system used by the Debian project, which has > > polished code for doing the churning. > > http://www.debian.org/vote/ > > http://www.seehuhn.de/pages/vote > > > > I'd be willing to put in the manual labour of transcribing paper ballots > > into a computer and running the program to find the results. > > > > ------------------ > > IDEA #1 -- preferential ballot system > > --------------- > > > > The ballots in these systems are pretty simple to fill out -- where they > > get a bit complicated is is the winner determination process. > > > > But the complexity of the algorithms that determine winners is a good > > thing, they're designed to do many useful things, like test if any > > option can win head to head against the others and discourage strategic > > voting, such as "burying" a choice that you only dislike somewhat but > > think will be popular and ranking higher choices you like less but know > > will do fine. (the preferential ballots with single drop rounds used in > > political party conventions are particularly prone to this) > > > > --------------- > > There are some other things we can do to keep this process clear and > > simple -- with and without preferential ballots. > > > > Perhaps we could kick it all off with this very simple binary proposal: > > > > --------START PROPOSAL ----------- > > That Skullspace enter in to a new agreement of at least 3 years with > > Assent Works and 125 Adelaide regardless of space configuration so long > as: > > * The cost sharing is equitable, with rent proportional to space > > exclusive > > to each of Skullspace and Assent Works > > * The $3000 requested be repaid over 3 years > > * Any renovations and legal fees required to bring this agreement in to > > effect be split > > * Any renovations required to transfer current skullspace to Asset > works > > (if this happens at all) be split > > -------END PROPOSAL------------ > > > > Do you support this proposal, yes or no? > > > > If a majority says yes, then we're in great shape -- it means most of us > > support staying without requiring a specific configuration as a > > condition for staying. Once that's passed we just need to follow a > > process for which configuration to go with and we can even spend more > > time on that if we want -- Assent Works should be happy if we're > > committed to stay at least under these conditions. > > > > If a majority says no, it doesn't mean a majority has voted to leave. It > > just means we need to do more work to tease out if people want to stay > > under more specific conditions instead of these broad ones -- this is > > where a preferential system could become more useful -- we'll still want > > to test if there's a dominant minority that wants to stay, but only in > > reduced form. > > > > ---------------------- > > IDEA #2 -- Proposal to accept broad conditions given for staying w/out > > being > > tied to specific configuration > > ---------------------- > > > > Returning to our multiple options, we can also simplify considerably how > > they're presented by framing them as just the amount of space we yield > > to Assent Works without regard to how we use the spaces we don't give up. > > > > This brings me back to the concept of "hard policy" vs "soft policy". > > How much space we yield is a matter of hard policy, its binding on all > > of us and its irreversible. What we do with the space remaining is "soft > > policy" -- as its very unlikely we'll be voting to allocate current > > reserves or future revenues to a particular transformation other than > > the separation side of things -- any additional renovations required to > > make a room more useful for a particular purpose is going to require > > volunteer labour going into fund-raising, volunteer labour on the > > renovations themselves, and volunteer labour in promoting the new use of > > space. > > > > A particular use for a room is not really set in stone by an abstract > > vote by the members with no dollars behind it. It's the spirit of > > do-macracy that really determines the fate of a room. > > > > By deferring the question of use and focusing on the yield side, We can > > reduce and simplify our choices down to: > > 1) yield nothing > > > > 2) yield 1 unit of space (arcade machine room) > > > > 3) yield 2 units of space (arcade machine room to current PC lab) > > > > 4) yield 3 units of space (arcade machine room, current PC lab, half of > > big back room with shelves) > > > > 5) yield 4 units of space (arcade machine through to all of big back > > room with shelves) > > > > 6) yield everything > > > > ------------ > > IDEA #3 choose among six allocations of Skullspace to Assent Works, > > w/out regard to our use of what remains > > ------------ > > > > As articulated in IDEA #1, I'd like to see these choices on a > > preferential ballot. > > > > But, failing that, here's another idea. Instead of being stuck with the > > default position of #6, we could first put it to a vote, #1 vs #6. From > > there we'll have a majority affirmed default, and then from there we put > > up new votes to move to the center -- e.g. 6 to 5 or 1 to 2 until > > there's no longer a majority position to move towards the centre.= > > > > --------------- > > IDEA #4 vote on a default, vote towards the center > > --------------- > > > > I suppose the board may also consider selecting their own default point > > (1 or 6) and then conduct votes towards the center -- I'd rather not see > > the starting point pre-ordained, but at least I'd be happy to see us > > focus on the hard policy (what to give up) and not get tied up in the > > soft policy (what a volunteers should do with what's left) > > > > > > Mark > > _______________________________________________ > > SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List > > Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss > > Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/ > > > _______________________________________________ > SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List > Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss > Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/ >
_______________________________________________ SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/
