On Friday, March 21, 2014 09:33:54 Justin Herman wrote: > 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.
We're not a government... We're a community who wants to get things done. What work do we need to do that cannot be done with consensus? > > 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. I am quite familiar with them, and they are very different pattern than consensus. We can not use parliamentary procedure, since we're not a parliament. > > 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. A president or executive is an implementation of the Command pattern, which, again, is not compatible with SYNHAK. If SYNHAK ends up having a handful of people dictating what the rules are and what we're going to do, that will very quickly kill off the creative spirit of the space. > > 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. I believe that the suggestions I've made will also solve those problems. How will adopting Robert's rules of order solve the issue of having two people able to completely steamroll a field of diverse opinions because one makes a motion to vote and another seconds? That is completely not within the spirit of SYNHAK. > > 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
