On Friday, March 21, 2014 09:58:12 dave walton wrote: > "Roberts Rules of Order was designed for people who like meetings and can't > stand each other. MIBS <http://wiki.hacdc.org/index.php/MIBS> SRC3 is > designed for people who hate meetings, generally get along pretty well, but > can sometimes get pretty opinionated and obstinate about thorny issues AND > tend to ramble on at length." > > This is taken from: > http://wiki.hacdc.org/index.php/MIBS_Simplified_Rules_of_Coordinated_Consens > us_through_Chaos
This looks incredibly interesting. Thank you, Dave! I should also add that my experience with various community driven decision making processes based on consensus is limited to my experiences with: * SYNHAK since 2011 * Noisebridge * HeatSync Labs * Sudo Room * KDE * GNOME * Collabora * Every single FOSS project I've contributed to * Being head of software development at previous employers * Agile software development methodologies * ACM chapter at UA * UA Ham Club * OSC Tech Lab The ones that used Roberts Rules of Order: * UA student government Guess which pattern has a better ratio of high quality stuff done to the concentration of power. Other sources and examples are always welcome for discussion. > > I've been involved with groups that use Roberts and groups that use > concensus. Roberts sucks in comparison. > > -Dave Walton > > On Friday, March 21, 2014, Justin Herman <[email protected]> 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. > > > > 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 re
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
