On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 00:02:33 Justin Herman 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?
You're right, why would one person be able to completely run over another person who is wildly flailing and screaming about wanting to compromise? Are you saying that six weeks isn't enough time to discuss alternatives with someone who is blocking a proposal? Would you rather that they have two months? A year? We currently use "infinity", which doesn't scale past 7 people or so. Just so we're clear, we currently use Consensus. We've done so since Ye Age of Myth. This proposal modifies our current process to provide a mechanism so that one person doesn't hold the entire group hostage. If you'd like to implement voting, you're free to make a new proposal, but I'm going to block it unless it has a mechanism for ensuring that everyone is happy instead of just some of the people. > > 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. What if we didn't have to have a losing side? What if we could all agree on some common ground that is synthesized from many ideas instead of steamrolling others just because "they lost"? Thats incredibly unfair. Here's a possible example of why one person should be allowed to block another member's application: Lets say a newbie is applying for membership. Out of the entire membership, one person knows that they are their former abuser, so they block. Shouldn't that one member be permitted to have a comfortable environment that doesn't pit them against their former abuser? If someone joins SYNHAK that I have serious issues about but the membership decides that I'm just "trying to cause drama", I'm pretty sure thats a very good reason to get up and leave SYNHAK. > > 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. Showing different POVs is not the same as exploring options that combine all the different POVs. Whats wrong with compromise? > > 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
