I am aware that there is already separate thread about this, but seeing as it has been up for so long without a single word of input from anyone I had to bring it up again. I pretty much addressed Torrie's concerns but I will do it again, even though most of them are not really valid.
>"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." First, it doesn't really matter if you are no longer comfortable with voting on a membership application since the proper way of gaining or getting rejected for membership is by a vote as outlined in section 5.2 of the bylaws, and Section 5.1 Membership Qualifications states "having been proposed by a current member in good standing, and having been approved by a vote of the membership". If you really don't want to vote than you need to have an amendment to the bylaws, since as far as I'm concerned voting is the only way we can confirm a member of SYNHAK, even if you don't like it. Second, the questions in the interview process have a huge impact on whether someone would be voted in or out of SYNHAK membership, I don't see how having a vote really changes that at all, kind of confused on this point. >"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"." Even if someone was a raging transphobe how would we know? I don't think it really has any bearing on whether they're going to be a member or not as long as they can keep civil and not let their personal feelings or beliefs keep them from getting a long with, at the very least putting up with someone who might be transexual. I highly doubt anyone at SYNHAK would think that is funny and find it offensive that you would even think that. >"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." You would have the opportunity to make your reservations known to the community as a whole, and even block that membership by yourself for 2 whole weeks, of which if you couldn't convince a small 15% of those at the meeting to your side then you didn't make your point good enough. One person should not have the power to indefinitely hold up a proposal or membership application just because they don't like it. Might I ask what is so effective about using a system that requires us to go back and forth over the same issues and talking points to reach 100% consensus and never get anything done, than just having a super majority vote of the membership in attendance and getting the issues resolved? I'm not saying everything has to be made fast, but if consensus can not be made in 6 weeks I highly doubt it will ever be made and there is no reason to drag the membership through that for so long. >"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?" I have to ask but did you even read my proposal? You would clearly see that there is no way a 51% - 49% vote could get anything passed in it, this point is completely invalid and doesn't deserve any more response. >"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" You do not understand the concern of the choice between voting over consensus then. It's main purpose is not for us to be able to make a decision quickly but revolves around the idea that we do not live in a perfect world. There are going to be many times where we won't be able to reach a consensus and talking about the same things week after week, month after month, is just not going to change that. We need a system in place that will allow us to keep moving forward even when 100% of the membership does no agree on a particular issue, and this proposal goes so far as to automatically failing a proposal or membership application if it can't get 76% of the membership's votes. I'm really not understanding your resistance to this as it allows for consensus while still giving us a set time table where decisions can be made in a reasonable amount of time. -Steve Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 21:09:09 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] One Last Time 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
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
