Speaking from being on other Boards and public Charity governing bodies....
There are rules that exist that permit members to motion to table discussions or to motion to take a decision to committee. Many government bodies use these rules to permit everyone has a voice and topics can stay focused. It sets procedure and sets the rules bodies can work through issues and how they communicate independent views. Many Larger and smaller groups have adopted these rules so they can get moving forward with doing the work they came together to do. They are the Roberts Rules of Order. All the rules may not work for us and maybe need tweaked but it is worth a look if you are not familiar with them. Here is a link to a quick synoposis: http://www.ulm.edu/staffsenate/documents/roberts-rules-of-order.pdf In addition a president or executive is commonly the one who leads the meeting and ensures that everyone is given a voice. (This is one of the reasons it is required by the state to have a president.) A president's job is not to affect the outcome but to allow others the fair playing field to speak. When motions are presented and seconded they are the person who ensures that procedure is followed. They are not a judge or magistrate and in many groups lacks voting (except in ties) in order to prevent bias. An adoption of some of these rules and procedures would help to solve the issue of: long meetings, hurt feelings, fear of lack of transparency, public outbursts, and ensure that the group moved forward without being held up for personal reasons. Justin On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Torrie Fischer <[email protected]>wrote: > On Friday, March 21, 2014 03:40:50 a l wrote: > > >* Do we really want to invite the non-interested public to watch us > argue > > > > about internal strife and politics? > > > > I can understand moving internal strife to members@ so we aren't > > bombarding the general community with our ramblings but big issues and > > fundamental disagreements are going to be brought up at meetings which > are > > public. We have people from all walks of life show up out of the blue. > > Since we are a public organization interested in transparency I don't see > > the point of sweeping our strife under the rug. Sure we're going to make > > mistakes(*http://tinyurl.com/8tjspo4 <http://tinyurl.com/8tjspo4>)* but > > why hide them? So long as we learn from them and don't repeat them > there's > > no shame in it. If people are concerned with public appearance and not > > looking like a bunch of fools with a warehouse all they have to do is > > remember that their emails are public and the internet never forgets. > > Right, but I feel that there is a difference between the kind of person who > subscribes to discuss@ and the kind of person who shows up on a Tuesday > because they heard about us and want to see whats up. The former shows some > knowledge of the mechanisms of mailing lists and can understand that > meetings > are dry, boring, and sometimes inflammatory. > > Those who show up on a Tuesday because "Hey, its a meeting, I wonder what > it'll be like" almost always leave halfway through the proposals section > and > end up wandering around the space if we're lucky to have knowledgeable > members > who want to show them around and don't have an interest in the discussion. > > I also have big issues with sweeping our strife under the rug, but I'm not > certain that purposefully cajoling them into watching it is any better. > > Perhaps in this case, more controversial issues can be requested to be > taken > out of the meeting in a separate meeting. > > I've sometimes thought about separating the announcements and community > project/event discussion from the membership, financials, proposals > section of > the Tuesday meeting with moving it to another day, but have been unable to > think of a good approach. > > > > > >* Meetings take way too freakin' long > > > > Meetings only go on forever when there are things that need > > discussing/hashing out. I know everyone would have been happier if the > > meeting on Tuesday hadn't gone on for 3 hours, but nothing would have > > gotten solved. I would guesstimate that the average meeting takes an > hour. > > There are just as many 7 minute meetings as there are 3 hour meetings. > > I'm not entirely against the idea but I don't see it radically changing > > things. Maybe I'm wrong. > > Maybe moving proposal discussion to email will allow people to argue > their > > point better, but if we've got the concerned parties in the same place at > > the same time why force them to take it to their inbox? There was a > > proposal some time ago to require people or their proxy to be present at > > the meeting in order to make decisions on proposals. By moving all > > discussion and blocking ability to the digital world we circumvent this > > requirement. We are a physical space made up of real people. We have to > > interact with each other at some point. > > I think that this workflow addresses this. Formal proposals are still > required > to be on discuss@ for at least a week. > > Example: > > 1. Issue is brought up at a meeting > 2. After 15 minutes of discussion, consensus is not reached, but everyone > agrees to move it to a non-discuss@ list > 3. The interested parties discuss the issue elsewhere > 4. A full proposal is written and submitted to discuss@ on Thursday > 5. The proposal is brought up for discussion at the next meeting > 6. Nobody blocks it, so it is carried over to the next meeting > 7. Nobody has still blocked it, so consensus is reached. > > I do understand your argument that this limits proposal discussion to those > who can e-mail. However, I think that we might be underestimating the > people > involved. I definitely do see three cohorts of members in the last two > years: > > * Those who come to the weekly meeting just to socialize and really don't > participate in the discussion or proposals > * Those who come to the weekly meeting just to socialize and really don't > participate in the discussion or proposals, and they aren't active on the > governance discussions on the lists > * Those who are deeply engaged in the discussion, proposals, and mailing > list > discussions about proposals > > Perhaps an alternative is to decide if an issue is big enough that it > warrants > having a separate meeting for discussion of the issue outside of the weekly > meeting. Or maybe even a lengthier discussion time. > > > > > regards, > > Andrew L > > I greatly appreciate your kind, thoughtful discussion and willingness to > suggest alternatives. Thank you for you excellence, Andrew. > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Torrie Fischer > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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
