On Thursday, March 20, 2014 16:16:36 a l wrote: > 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?
I'm not sure what scenario you're wishing to compare your hypothetical situation to. > > - 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
