Just for clarification Steve, I also had an issue with the contract for Justin's business. Not specifically in the contract itself, rather that there was no record of a board vote to enter into it. Myself, and several others agreed that there was an issue but instead of sticking on that issue Alex came up with a great solution that benefits everyone involved which myself and Becca tried to suggest as well. Unfortunately no one seemed to discuss the solution further once it was suggested. So no Torrie was not the only one who had an issue, simply she was the most vocal and so was center stage for that. But I digress...
As far as voting goes, I am not in favor of voting on things. Board decisions and elections is really the only time that voting truly occurs. The reality is that consensus works best when the participants are open to change their perspective on issues. The person most likely to block things indefinitely are those who are unwilling to accept new ideas. The person making the proposal also has to be willing to accept changes to their idea so that consensus may be reached. When a group reaches consensus it doesn't mean that everyone says "YES I LIKE THIS!" it means that no one is able to find a good reason why it shouldn't be. On the subject of interpersonal conflicts, I'll say this, 8 years in the military service has taught me that you don't have to like a person to work well together and have a good time. The famous Mythbusters Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage actually don't hang out with each other. There was an AMA they did on Reddit when someone asked if they are friends, the response was this, "Since this seems to be coming up quite a bit here, for the record, Adam > and I have done quite well by each other and have learned to have respect. > We don't hang out, we don't like each other, but see that as an asset > rather than a problem. There is no dishonesty, no meanness, no game > playing, no emotion. Just get the job done. We both feel the other brings a > lot to the game." Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1xqull/i_am_jamie_hyneman_cohost_of_mythbusters/cfdtwyu This is a great example of how we can all get along at Synhak without friendship being a requirement (though preferred, not required). Those are my thoughts and opinions. I know not all of it is on topic but if this proposal requires a third to be brought to the floor then count me in. Its an important subject for which I thank Steve for bringing it up. On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Steve Radonich IV <[email protected]>wrote: > Yes I would love to keep it that way but since it was brought up there was > no way around of not addressing it. > > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 12:59:27 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] One Last Time > > Since I guess we need a second and a third for any kind of discussion during > the meeting, I'm seconding this proposal. > > I do not support the proposal, but I'd rather see it make it to the meeting > for discussion. > > On Tuesday, April 01, 2014 20:12:07 Steve Radonich IV wrote: > > I've brought this up on the discuss list a couple times and even brought it > > up at last weeks meeting to make the proposal idea known and it was left > > out of the meeting minutes somehow. I just walked in late for the meeting > > and it was at the very end and over before I could even figure out where we > > were or what was going on so I'm bringing it up again. It seemed like there > > was a lot of interest in this topic last week and the last 2 months over > > how we went about blocking a proposal or membership application, so I set > > out to come up with an idea that would make both parties happy of those who > > wanted to vote vs reaching a consensus. Everyone that I have talked to in > > person about my idea has received it quite well, with just a few questions > > on why I've chosen certain procedures. This is an issue that I feel we > > really need to get worked out before blocking becomes a serious issue and > > causes more division in the group. > > > > Please if you have any questions, suggestions, concerns or anything about > > this ask them, this is a discussion list after all but discussion has been > > non-existent on this and I can not understand why. > > > > Here is a link to the PDF: http://ubuntuone.com/2FaD11sRVOEzUOObTDvq0P > > > > And here is the format ruined copy/paste of the proposal: > > > > 1.) Membership applications or Proposals may be accepted by the Membership > > of SYNHAK as long as no Member, in good standing, blocks any such action. > > If a SYNHAK Member, in good standing, wishes to block a Membership > > application or Proposal the reason to block must fall under one of the > > following categories: > > A.) Make a specific reference to any violation of SYNHAK Code, Policy or > > By-Laws that the Proposal or potential Member might be in conflict with > > B.) Make a specific reference to any violations of 26 US Code Section > > 501(c)(3) or Section 509(a)(2) > > C.) Make a specific reference to any violations of Federal, State, or Local > > law or regulations that are applicable > > D.) If it is a Proposal, make an alternate Proposal, or modification to the > > Proposal in question, that aims to correct any issues with the current one > > E.) If it is a Membership application, explain verifiable evidence as to why > > that person does not deserve to be a Member based on any personal or > > professional experience you have with the person in question > > Failure to meet any of the criteria above would result in the Proposal or > > Membership application process to continue as stated in the SYNHAK By-Laws. > > 2.) Should the preceding criteria be met the issues should be discussed > > among the attending membership at the meeting until no further constructive > > comments/opinions are made, and the discussion continued on the member mail > > list in the week leading up to the next meeting. > > 3.) During the following meeting (the "2 nd meeting") the issue will be > > brought up again: A.) If all issues or complaints have been properly dealt > > with, and the Member or Members, in good standing, withdraw their block on > > a Membership application or Proposal then the process is to continue as > > stated in the SYNHAK By-Laws. B.) If however, the Member or Members, in > > good standing, do not withdraw their block due to their belief their > > reasons stated in the previous meeting were not properly addressed. The > > Membership application or Proposal will be blocked for another week with > > further discussion at the meeting with the Members in attendance, and on > > the members mail list. > > 4.) During the following meeting (the "3 rd meeting") the issue will be > > brought up again: A.) If all issues or complaints have been properly dealt > > with, and the Member or Members, in good standing, withdraw their block on > > a Membership application or Proposal then the process is to continue as > > stated in the SYNHAK By-Laws. B.) If however, the Member or Members, in > > good standing, do not withdraw their block due to their belief their > > reasons stated in the previous meetings were not properly addressed the > > following will take place: > > I.) A final discussion period will take place where all further issues will > > bediscussed until either: a.) A consensus is met in favor of, or against, > > the Membership application or Proposal. > > or > > b.) 15% or more of the attending Membership move to have a show of > > hands of those in favor of, or against, the Membership application > > or Proposal. The following can happen based on the show of > > hands: > > i.) If 86% or more of the Membership in attendance is in favor of > > the Membership application or Proposal then the process is > > to continue as stated in the SYNHAK By-Laws. > > ii.) If 15% or more of the Membership in attendance is against the > > Membership application or Proposal then it is blocked for > > one more week. > > II.) The decision of the Membership in attendance is carried out with no > > further argument or discussion on the topic at hand. > > 5.) If the Membership application or Proposal is blocked again with a 15% or > > more vote of the Membership in attendance then the issue will be discussed > > in the meeting, and on the member mail list, for a maximum of 4 weeks after > > the vote during the 3 rd meeting. During each meeting leading up to the 4 > > th week the issue will be put up for discussion following the same process > > as outlined in section 4. Should it reach the 4 th week the Membership > > application or Proposal will be put up for a vote, requiring a minimum of > > 76% or more of Membership in attendance vote in favor to pass, or 25% or > > more of Membership in attendance vote against it to fail. > > > _______________________________________________ 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
