Yes I agree with Craig " if consensus cannot be reached within a few weeks vote and move on."
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Craig Bergdorf <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
