The confusion between voting and consensus comes not just from new members
but from those that were aware of the idea of SynHak prior to it's public
debut. This is due to words being used interchangeably at meetings. Meeting
minutes vary between voting and consensus being used. in some cases actual
vote counts exist. Furthering the confusion was the widely agreeable nature
of many of the early proposals. There are a few instances of proposals
being retracted or otherwise agreed they were not such good ideas but by
and large the small active community was in favor of every proposal. Now
that we have a larger community and after recent disagreements we are
experiencing proposals being brought forward where people have significant
sometimes fundamental disagreement. Furthering the dissonance are the
unintentional cliques that form. Many people interact at the space while
working on projects, others are equally at home on IRC. These modes of
communication easily give a sense of agreement but only contain a small
population of our community. Then when proposals are brought to meetings
people are surprised when they are met with staunch resistance. I'm going
to paraphrase a former member and board members words here:
If things aren't working smoothly or how we want them to work, we only
have ourselves to blame.
This is OUR community, it isn't YOURS or MINE. We have all contributed
time, effort, and lost sleep to see things where they are today. Let's not
stress ourselves unduly. Now on to the meat and potatoes.
Blocking:
A block for one week may be put in place by any member in good standing for
any reason on any proposal being decided. The option to renew this block
after one week must meet the following criteria:
A) An alternate solution must be proposed
B) The block must specify applicable violations of the Syn/Hak, INC Bylaws
C) The block must specify applicable violations of 26 US Code Section
501(c)(3) or Section 509(a)(2)
D) The block must specify applicable violations of Federal, State, or Local
law
If after 6 weeks of discussion the original blocking party(ies) have
not been satisfied the proposal may be voted into effect by an absolute
supermajority, constituting 80% of the membership of SynHak, Inc. This
vote may be conducted in person or through secure digital voting means. The
intent to vote on the issue must be stated 1 week prior to the vote in
order to allow voting arrangements to be made.
> It feels to me
that this is just a big circlejerk of "fuck Torrie".
I think there is a significant amount of resentment over the actions you
took to bring attention to your concerns. This is poisoning your overall
message, that things are broken and need fixed by everyone.
>Are you really that paranoid that someone is acting dishonestly?
Given recent conversation about intent behind members actions, recent
proposals to expand those who have Admin privileges I would say the
unfortunate answer to your question is: yes. There are a number of people
who don't trust other members to act in a way that is excellent.
That is not to say that anyone is maliciously trying to cause the failure
of SynHak, but rather people are do-ocratically making decisions while no
one is around to stop them.
This, if I am not mistaken is the scenario we are trying to remedy.
Overcaffeinatedly,
Andrew L
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Dave Walton <[email protected]> wrote:
> The only instance when consensus does not work in large groups is when
> someone decides to make it fail.
>
> The fact that consensus may fail is not a reason to abandon it.
>
> This speaks to what I see as the core of hacker philosophy - the risk of
> failure must not keep you from trying.
>
>
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 3:19 AM, Andrew Buczko <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Torie, The meeting minutes from :
> https://synhak.org/wiki/Meetings/2013-01-01
> Say nothing about "how" we decide on a proposal. The meeting minutes only
> refer to the Proposal page:
> https://synhak.org/wiki/Proposals
> The Proposal page Has the basic rules on how we decide on proposals, but
> it was last modified on 19 March 2014, at 16:23.
>
> Being that this is a wiki and I just verified that I can change the
> document to say what ever I want it to say then I / we cannot trust that
> this is how it's has always been.
>
> Plus, even if it has been, I don't see consensus working in a larger group.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
