>Top-down is not how SYNHAK started, nor is it how we've ever ran things.
I don't recall saying that it was.
My point was that we are an organization that has meetings. People have
brought up that meetings take too long and go too in-depth on topics not
everyone cares about. Many people brought up how other organizations
conduct their meetings. I just wanted to make sure we weren't being myopic
in looking for ways to streamline our meetings.
Sure Robert's rules flow using parliamentary/traditional/top-down
infrastructure but at the end of the day you have a source of power
deciding that a topic has had enough time, using a set of rules to move the
discussion on to something else. In my mind some of these rules may be
adopted substituting the members present/consensus for a central command
structure/voting.
The moderator's role is to:
- Make sure everyone gets a chance to speak
- Speak minimally yourself
- Keep the meeting moving
- Handle the membership voting process
- Be sure to thoroughly follow the procedure outlined in this document,
as the template may occasionally change without warning.
- The order of things is also important. We induct new members prior
to proposals, so that they too may have a say in things.
https://synhak.org/wiki/Next_Meeting#Moderator
In the past when announcements have turned into discussion they have
reminded us 'Hey, this goes here' or when it seems most people are done
discussing things they as " is it cool we we end the meeting and you keep
discussing after?". I'm not saying we give the moderator any more power
than they already [don't] have. I'm saying if people are unhappy with how
meetings are going lets change the rules we use. Who cares whether the
rules come from Robert or MIBS so long as they work for our community?
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Torrie Fischer
<[email protected]>wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
