Craig, you just summed it up quite well. Less feelings will get hurt, and the community will be better off if we just draw the line and have a vote. These endless weeks, months, on end of badgering people little by little until people just give up is not good for the community.
Since we are for the public we need to keep in mind that we are not going to like, or be friends with everyone that comes into the space, but that should not stop us from being able to at least get along to some extent so as to not disturb the space. Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 02:34:31 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] One Last Time To write on an m&m - consensus by each week changing a few swing voters until the minority that truly believes just quits for the good of the hive - vs - if consensus cannot be reached within a few weeks vote and move on. (It's a big m&m) You are never going to convince me to have all computers in the space be linux, or to disown a member for acting in good faith. How is squelching the minority with a vote different from doing so by wearing them down over weeks/months? I agree entirely that consensus is the better option for most issues, but what if, after a run of thefts from the space, a minimum income for membership was proposed? The only way to convince me would be if my holding out was destroying the space. This doesn't happen with voting, after all negotiations are clearly stalemated a vote happens and I loose. I take that I am in the minority, decide if I can continue to associate myself, and if so, move on (All within a month). Instead of, after months of being badgered,attacked,asked why then shot down when I try to explain, all to get me to consense against my morals & world view, leaving my key taped to the top of the microwave as I am too hated to be an asset to the space anymore. On polarizing issues, such as a new member with views towards others directly incompatible, however shares the same goals as the group, and are house trained enough not to act on them: This is exactly what separates a club from something for the public. If we get 100 members I can guarantee a few of them are going to make me uncomfortable, key my car, and may sour my entire synhak experience causing me to start missing meetings, and stay away outside of my required Sundays. An issue that I haven't heard much talk about: How big do you(everybody) want synhak to be? I won't start the quality vs quantity debate as that line is different for everyone, I'll just coughf out (once again) if everyone gets along we are a club of friends, not a public resource where people with similar goals come to achieve and make. Is being everyone's friend a requirement for membership? On Apr 2, 2014 12:50 AM, "Torrie Fischer" <[email protected]> wrote: On Tuesday, April 01, 2014 23:10:39 Steve Radonich IV wrote: > 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? > >"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? > > 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. > 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? > 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. > >"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, 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. > >"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? > > -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
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
