On Thursday, March 20, 2014 03:28:21 Andrew Buczko wrote: > "feel" ? > > It's a system, you use it to make decisions. > 1> an proposal is brought up. > 2> we talk on it / make changes / corrections. > 3> we vote for it or against it. > > Step two is the step where we could split the proposal to accommodate > every one if there are two schools of thought. > > Spending four months talking about your problems is no way to run a group > Andy
We're a lot more than some vague "group", we're a community of people who have a primary focus of getting along and working together. Feelings matter. > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Torrie Fischer > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
