now that i'm seeing all the colors again, the new moderation style seems interesting. Always up to try something new. Seems awful strict (and like i'm 5), but if you think it could prove to be better, then no complaints on trying it from me (something has to change). Are you set on the note taker retyping the proposal? I've always just copied it, as it recently passed that the exact wording is what's being proposed anyway, why introduce possibility for errors?
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Craig Bergdorf <[email protected]> wrote: > --I don't think there is a single person here who can honestly say that the > > membership is currently a wonderful and tight-knight community of people > who > trusts that we are all looking out for the group's best interests. > > > (Raises hand) - I do > > Maybe not so tight-knit anymore, but still within spec, and most certainly > looking out for the space's best interests. I emphatically trust the > members of synhak by default, and the majority of people who have walked > through the front door have not given me a reason to doubt them. > On Mar 24, 2014 11:04 AM, "Torrie Fischer" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Monday, March 24, 2014 09:06:20 a l wrote: >> > >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? >> >> Right. >> >> I would like to be moderator this week to try out this pattern: >> >> * Get rid of the tables and arrange the chairs in a circle, so nobody is >> standing up and there isn't anything in between any of us >> * Introductions, but instead of "What do you do?", a different prompt that >> helps everyone get to know each other. What would your superhero power be? >> * Announcements! Everyone gets exactly two uninterrupted minutes to make >> an >> announcement. Everyone gets a turn before anyone goes twice. >> * Membership, though we don't have any interviews this week. >> * Financial report. Just the same brief statements I've been doing lately. >> >> I've been reading this book lately, regarding effective patterns in >> consensus >> meeting management: >> >> >> http://www.amazon.com/Consensus-Through-Conversation-High-Commitment-Decisions/dp/1576754197 >> >> For the Proposals section, I'd like to try this, which is suggested in the >> book: >> >> 1. A call for any open issues that we want to discuss >> >> 2. The issue is stated clearly and written up in the minutes while the >> author >> to check that they are happy with the description >> >> 3. We take a few seconds to quietly reflect on the issue >> >> 4. A count of who has concerns and who is unable to support the proposed >> solution >> >> 5. Those who support the solution stay quiet while concerned people get >> turns >> describing their view, which is written into the minutes. No discussion of >> blocks yet! >> >> 6. Everyone takes turns providing information or suggestions to modify the >> solution, until concerns are addressed >> >> 7. Blockers take turns explaining why they are blocking, along with their >> alternative suggestion >> If you're blocking, you're *required* to provide an alternative! >> Otherwise, >> the block doesn't count. >> >> 8. Repeat 3 through 7 until we have consensed! >> >> Consensus, much like any other structure, only works if the facilitator is >> willing to put the effort and energy in to making it work. The facilitator >> isn't a source of authority. The group doesn't serve them, the facilitator >> serves the group. Their primary goal is making sure that everyone works >> together to come up with a solution that we can all support by helping the >> group figure out if solutions and issues are personal in nature or if >> they're >> really in the best interest of the space. >> >> This consensus process removes any notion that there is a top-down >> managerial >> structure which can quickly cause resentment and distrust. If power is >> concentrated in a single person, it turns into a dangerous situation of >> "lets >> not piss them off, or I'll get punished". Heck, the fact that there is a >> book >> in my hands at this very moment called "The Gurrilla Guide to Robert's >> Rules" >> speaks a *lot* about how the system can be abused and power struggles come >> naturally to Robert's Rules. It is a slimy disgusting tome of high caliber >> social manipulation that describes "In-the-trenches tactics for getting >> your >> way without giving up your values". >> >> I don't think there is a single person here who can honestly say that the >> membership is currently a wonderful and tight-knight community of people >> who >> trusts that we are all looking out for the group's best interests. >> >> We really do need some sanate. Lets try it. >> >> > >> > >> > 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 >> >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
