+1
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:24 PM, a l <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure which thread discussing consensus decision making people will > read but this is the one with the actual proposal in it so I'm posting this > here. > The majority of our proposals in previous meetings have been agreed on > 100% so regardless of which form of decision making was used they were > indistinguishable. > I don't want to exclude anyone anymore than anyone else but there will > come a topic in which someone will block it for no real reason. Sure we can > say they are unexcellent and go through the process of member removal but > that is a long drawn out affair(for a good reason) and really reflects > poorly on the state of the 'space if we have to use it. > > >* Proposals or membership applications may be accepted by the Membership > of SYNHAK as long as nobody blocks any such application. > > If we can change the wording to '..as long as no member in good standing > of Syn/Hak ...' this looks good. > > >** Not everyone has to agree with the reason for a block to be valid, it > just > has to be clearly stated. > > I strongly feel there should be qualifications for a prolonged block. > Since things are scattered around I've reposted my thoughts for > consideration: > > 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 > > > >* Blocked membership applications or proposals with the support of at > least > three total members may be blocked indefinitely. > > I realize this is for scenarios where an axe-murderer, terrorist, or other > ne'er-do-well wants to become a member. I realize some people are > exceptionally good at hiding their past/current intentions but I have faith > in our community not to sponsor most of these people. As it reads there is > room for abuse. > We have in the past declared proposals as bad ideas(tm) and not passed > them. There needs to be a sunset on the time a proposal is considered > active. Having an indefinite block implies the proposal is still being > considered. A mechanism to fail or otherwise not pass proposals needs to > exist. > > regards, > Andrew L > > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Torrie Fischer > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
