On Wednesday, April 02, 2014 03:36:56 Andrew Buczko wrote: > "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?
You're my favorite <3 > > 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
