On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 20:52:23 alex kot wrote: > Kind of random idea, can spiff incorporate a voting system, per membership?
Of course it can, but there is a backlog of items before I can get to that. > > > > ------------------------------ > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 11:31 PM EDT 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. > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
