So perhaps if, hypothetically , someone voiced concerns about the safety/legality/allowance under the lease of certain modifications that were being done to the building. And then was told they were being un-excellent to other members who put in valuable time, or told they were 'bike shedding' while waving hands in the air and walking away from them. When they proposed an alternative told they were being unreasonable. In other words, to use a term I've seen a lot lately on the list, 'steamrolled' by the majority into submission.
Is that the kind of scenario you would find equivalent? - Andrew L On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Torrie Fischer <[email protected]>wrote: > On Thursday, March 20, 2014 15:32:11 a l wrote: > > 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 exactly what I'm doing with voting vs consensus. We've used > consensus > for as long as I can remember. Over time, it seems that folks have drifted > ever so imperceptibly slowly towards voting. > > I finally decide to stand up and remind everyone that we've drifted off > course, and now its a big issue that I want to bring everyone back into > agreement with what we've decided on in the past. > > > > > > > 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. > > No voting. I am thoroughly and wholly against voting and will block any > proposal to adopt voting over consensus, unless someone can convince me > that > our need for voting outweighs the benefits of experimenting with gradual > modifications to the consensus process. I've provided some alternatives > already that don't use voting but still prevent a single person from > abusing > consensus to stop progress. > > > > > > 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. > > I started by being rather peaceful about all this. I openly and politely > voiced my concerns at every opportunity. Only after about three months of > being shut down and ignored and finally told that we were locked in an > incredibly dangerous situation did I decide that getting upset and making > waves was warranted. > > I would like to see someone else in my shoes, witness the same, and not be > completely pissed off. > > > > > >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 >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
