Another lengthy mail wherein I try to rouse more discussion about decision making at SYNHAK.
Right now I see two related discussions regarding implementing consensus at SYNHAK: * A separate list for discussion about bureaucracy * Blocking can be abused to halt progress I think that there is a third issue that should be considered, that is implied by the first that Alex brought up: * Do we really want to invite the non-interested public to watch us argue about internal strife and politics? And a fourth that I think 100% of the membership wants to solve: * Meetings take way too freakin' long Lets face it, meetings aren't friendly to people who just want to visit the space and see what we've got to offer. Maybe we should stop catering them to the public who isn't interested in governance and instead use an opt-in system. This is actually something that's been on my mind for a while, but Alex's post made me start thinking a bit more about a workable implementation. I feel that this also goes along with my mantra of "You can be as member as you want to be". Perhaps we can modify the order of our weekly meeting agenda and repurpose the meeting to take on the full role of a governance mechanism. To start, here's a neat diagram that illustrates a common process for consensus: http://howtosavetheworld.ca/images/consensus.jpg Don't focus on the blocking. Instead, focus on how proposals come to be. First, an issue is presented. This includes the history of the issue, why it is important, and the goals of a discussion about the issue. The issue is then explored and discussed. We gather feelings about the topic and get a feel for what everyone thinks. Only after a general idea is formulated from the group feedback does a formal proposal come about. When a proposal is created, a number of advocates can take responsibility for working to reach consensus about it. These advocates don't need to share the same idea, but they do recognize the importance of the issue and that it needs to be solved. Without advocates, a formal, written proposal cannot be made. What I'm suggesting, is that the structure of our meeting should be changed to: * Introductions * Announcements * Membership * Financial Report * Consensus <--\ ** Open Proposals <--| ** Issue Discussion <--/ Discussion and collaboration regarding announcements can happen outside of the meeting at a different time, or preferably on the discuss@ list. For example, announcing that you're working on a new project would be nice and would show up in the minutes, but the meeting wouldn't be used for that. Proposals would also be gone. Instead, Consensus would handle the process in that above diagram: Discussing and presenting current issues, followed by presenting a formal proposal. Anyone is free to bring up an issue at the space, and it is discussed for a maximum period of time, perhaps 15 to 20 minutes. If consensus is reached, a formal proposal is written and sent to discuss@. If not, discussion is moved to the appropriate list by those who wish to continue discussion. i.e. noc@ for digital infrastructure, bizops@ for financial and operational details, build@ for physical buildout, bureaucracy@ for policies, rules, consensus itself, etc. Each list then hosts the discussion for relevant issues. The discussion that happens works towards having a formal proposal that those involved can agree on. The next issue is brought up, discussed for a maximum period of time, and a proposal is written, or discussion continued elsewhere until a formal proposal comes about. At the next meeting, formal written proposals are brought up during Open Proposals. If nobody has blocked and the proposal has been open for 7 days, the proposal has been consensed. If anyone does block, they must have a fundamental moral issue with the proposal or be able to defend their block in debate. They can only block for a maximum of four weeks, but a total of three members may block a proposal for an indefinite period. If a formal proposal is blocked by one person for more than four weeks, they're being a stick in the mud and the proposal is considered consensed. If a formal proposal is blocked by three or more people, the proposal is considered dropped, though the issue may be brought up for discussion again at the next meeting. Here is an example: 1. Alice wants some space money to purchase and install a new front door that has a bigger window 2. Alice brings up the issue of the front door's window at the next meeting 3. The community discusses the window and decides the real issue is brightening up the front room and that it would be easier to install a window in the wall than to replace the whole front door. 4. Discussion takes longer than 15m, so Alice and other brighter-front-room- supporters continue discussion on build@ 5. build@ comes up with a written proposal to purchase and install a window and sends it to discuss@ 6. At the next meeting, the members present note that nobody has blocked the proposal, so it is considered consensed. 7. Treasurer dispenses money to those who want to purchase and install the window 8. We've got a new window and a less dungeony lit front room in three weeks time. tl;dr of the process: Proposals and Discussion sections in the weekly meeting are replaced with a single Consensus section, where: * Written proposals are considered for consensus ** If nobody blocks, it is considered consensed. ** If someone blocks, the issue is put in the queue for discussion * Issues are brought up and discussed for a max of 15 minutes ** If consensus is made, a formal proposal is written and sent to discuss@ ** If consensus was not made, discussion continues outside of the meeting With these constraints on blocking: * A blocker must have a fundamental moral issue or otherwise defend their block in debate * Single person blocks may only last four weeks * Three or more person blocks may be indefinite tl;dr of the process in an image: http://i.imgur.com/G8fmFsE.png
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
