On Sunday, March 23, 2014 21:06:17 a l wrote: > 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.
I'm not sure I believe that. SYNHAK has always had bottom-up decision making. Top-down is not how SYNHAK started, nor is it how we've ever ran things. > > 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_Conse > > ns> > > > 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
