"Probably because I'm transgender and can easily pick out transphobic behaviors. Lets not talk about that though."
Why are you against people who are afraid to travel across seas? What do you have against them? On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 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
