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 <[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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
