Sorry for the bold, my browser was freaking out while I composed that. Ugh regards, Andrew L
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:08 PM, a l <[email protected]> wrote: > > *I realize you want to streamline how things operate at SynHak, and I > encourage that. However there is already a separate discuss thread(* > [SH-Discuss] Proposal: Blocking of a Proposal/Membership Application) > where you bring up this proposal. Which was started after you brought it > up in the other thread([SH-Discuss] Proposal: Consensus with Limited > Blocking) discussing how best to deal with blocking and decision making. > > I would request, again, that discussion of a given > topic/proposal/alternate wording to solve the same problem remain in one > thread. It becomes difficult to remember who brought up issues or suggested > revisions. > Additionally > *, Torrie voiced concerns/reservations about your suggestions when they > were initially brought up. * > > > "Bylaws don't say anything about proposals. Sure they say we've got the > right > to vote on membership applications, but I'm no longer comfortable with that > route. The questions asked interview process have the possibility of > having no > real impact. > > I imagine asking someone questions and finding out that they're a raging > transphobe, but the majority of the people present at the meeting who fail > to > understand the gravity of my concerns think "haha, they're funny". > > I certainly would not be comfortable with their membership without being > able > to block and then further getting to know them. > I'm still not convinced that voting is an effective method of getting the > support of everyone. > > Again, if 50% support a decision for something such as "replacing the > ceiling > in the palm room" (you know, the crappy half), 49% vote against it, and the > only people able or willing to invest any effort into replacing the ceiling > and seeing the job through vote against it, how does the ceiling get > replaced? > > Again, sorry for a second reply; I should start using drafts... > > I think that I understand the concerns of choosing Voting over Consensus, > and > that it boils down to a perception that we need to make decisions quickly. > > I feel that it is in SYNHAK's best interest to make high quality decisions > that practically everyone can support instead of fast decisions that only > some > people can support. There is absolutely nothing keeping a member from > leaving > if they feel that the space is in a rush to ignore their concerns. > > A suggestion or list of suggestions of when these quick decisions are > needed > would help me understand better." ---Torrie > > > regards, > Andrew L >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
