Here's a wiki page I wrote with a more fleshed out version of what I want to try, why I want to try it, and why it is beneficial to SYNHAK as a whole:
https://synhak.org/wiki/Consensus_process On Monday, March 24, 2014 11:04:01 Torrie Fischer 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-Decisio > ns/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_Con > > > se > > > > > > > > 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
