Surely*, we surely need to address... Sorry for the double post, Andrew L On Mar 19, 2014 2:06 AM, "a l" <[email protected]> wrote:
> We secondly need to address the scaling issues but if we're constantly > proposing amendments to proposals when do we get to hack? Conversely if > we're always trying to please everyone, when do we get to hack? > > Also what happens when the proposal affects money? We can't always unspend > it. > > Regards, > Andrew L > On Mar 19, 2014 1:24 AM, "Andrew Buczko" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I do not see consensus working as the group grows larger, we need to vote >> and be done with the mater at hand. >> 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 <[email protected]>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 < >>> [email protected]> 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 >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
