>> 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. > >Which concerns did you address? And which ones are invalid and why?
I addressed all of them right here. I exaggerated a bit saying most are invalid, as only 1 was completely, for that I apologize. >> >"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. > >Right. Thats what the rules say. > >We can change the rules. > >Thats the point of our governance process. The mechanism in this case is to >get a bylaw amendment. If we feel that this is warranted, it'll go there. Are >we not currently discussing making more rules and bureaucracy because the >current rules are perceived as not compatible with our desired end state? I am unaware of any discussion to change the rules, I was under the impression that you didn't like the way we have been doing it since I first came to SYNHAK and just unilaterally changed them. Before you say that we had always used consensus I would argue that as would many people that I talk to. We had been voting on things for quite a while before you through that little fit about consensus a few weeks ago. I don't feel we need to change from voting, it works and do not see it conflicting with our goals. >> >> 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. > >How would they know? > >Probably because I'm transgender and can easily pick out transphobic >behaviors. Lets not talk about that though. For this I really have no comment. >> not let their personal feelings or beliefs > >You really don't think this matters? People can forget all about their >prejudices and irrational hate and not let it out in some way? > >You think that I wouldn't feel incredibly uncomfortable at the space if I knew >that there was someone there who thinks of me as less than human? I do think people can put what they personally feel about someone's sexual identity, sexual orientation, religion, etc., etc., away and get along with people that they may have disagreements with on their lifestyles or feelings. Just because someone disagrees with something, be it based on religion or something else, does not mean that they think of anyone as less than human. Sure, there are many that do, but I have to tell you that they are a small slice of a larger group. Take me for example, I believe that if you are born a certain sex than you will always be that sex, no matter what you do change your appearance on the outside. Yet not once could you claim that I've ever been disrespectful towards you, or purposefully used the wrong gender pronoun in conversation with you. I've always had good conversations with you, and hope to do so in the future. Just because I believe something doesn't mean that I hate you just because you believe the opposite. >> at the very least putting up with someone who might be transexual. > >Ah, thanks for that. I can see how I am something to be "put up with". In no >way could being every day in the presence of someone who feels this ever get >to me and cut deep emotional gouges and cause me to think that SYNHAK is no >longer a safe place. > >Please understand that you have said some things pointed at a core facet of my >human identity in what I am perceiving as an incredibly insensitive and >discourteous manner. > >Yes I am nonplussed. That is not what was meant and you know it. When I say "put up with" I mean get over the fact that someone might be gay, transexual, etc., and continue to do their hacking or whatever. Not everyone looks at these issues and lets it get to them and cause a disturbance in the space. If you can't look past someone else's faults or differences in belief from your own then I'd say you are the one being inconsiderate and closed minded not them. Plus why care what they think anyway? You're going to let someone you barely know have that much effect on your emotional well-being? >> >"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. > >When someone blocks, you can't say "I don't like it." It has to be proven that >the block does not benefit the space but instead harms it. Again, I'm not really sure what you mean here. It is the responsibility of the person who wants to block to prove that the proposal or member would cause harm to the community not the other way around. >> >"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. > >Sorry, I was asking a question for clarification. If your proposal said that, >I might've skipped it over. I would appreciate it if you didn't immediately >assume that I'm not reading what you wrote when I ask questions to better >comprehend it. It was said, quite clearly and had you read it completely you would have known that and not needed to ask a pointless questions. >> >"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. > >Ok. What about my resistance are you not understanding? > >Is it the bit that states that the way we work is all 100% black/white yes/no >decisions? > >Is it the bit that wants to avoid potential points of interpersonal conflict >before they have a chance to rear their head again? > >Is it the assumption that blocking is meant to be a nuclear option amongst the >membership and that there are still ways to go around a block that doesn't >result in voting? > >Is it my engineering mind that feels it is best to make incremental >evolutionary changes instead of radical sweeping rewrites to gain the benefit >of more bug checking thorough peer review and controlled experimentation? > >Is it something else? > >> I don't understand why you're so against voting when it is appropriate to do so to stop thing being dragged around for much longer than needed. Voting is fair, and always has been as long as the integrity of the vote is preserved. As I said before we don't live in a perfect world and this addresses that quite well. Please note that consensus under this proposal would still be the default way to pass proposals and such, this just provides a way to reach consensus if a block is initiated that doesn't drag the conversation on and on over a ridiculous period of time so emotions don't get the best of people. I'm not sure you are being quite honest saying that we work 100% yes/no because I have been at many votes during meeting where there were people voting no, and those voting yes and seen things go through. I haven't seen one thing you've suggested that avoids potential points of interpersonal conflict as you say. Trying to force consensus down the throats of everyone usually just pisses people off as there is not always common ground to be reached and a fair alternative way to make these decisions needs to be in place. How would you get around a block if we are to reach consensus 100% of the time on everything? Please explain that to me because it sounds like you are contradicting yourself. -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
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
