Thanks for the look at how other organizations work Justin and Dave. > We can not use parliamentary procedure, since we're not a parliament........A president or executive is an implementation of the Command pattern, which, again, is not compatible with SYNHAK.
I think the intent behind metioning Robert's rules was to simply show discuss@ how other groups keep their meetings moving. >All the [Robert's] rules may not work for us and maybe need tweaked but it is worth a look if you are not familiar with them. I'd wager you are in the minority Torrie and Dave. Most people are more familiar with a top down style of management so they'll be using that as a frame of reference. Like both Torrie and Justin said, practices borrowed from those management styles will likely require tweaking if we use them at all. We're sort of like Jeet Kun Do in that respect: "take what works and eliminate that which doesn't.". Though we have no formal 'command' structure we do, at meetings, have a moderator who tries to keep things flowing. This person changes(mostly) week to week so giving them some tools to help keep us on track doesn't on the face of it sound like a bad idea to me. regards, Andrew L On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Torrie Fischer <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
