Justin and others in this thread, Add my name to the list of supporters of this proposal.
I have no reservations about using either verbal or silent (private) voting to accept or reject a proposal. If we can achieve simplicity and transparency in the near future, there is a real possibility that SH will be able to recover from the chaos and confusion and move forward as a successful non-profit organization. I look forward to the day that I can come to SH with friends and associates and not be embarrassed by the disorder, negative attitudes/behavior and low morale. As I have said many times before, SH is an evolutionary organization and will constantly change as new members are welcomed and new equipment/software/tools are acquired. It does not and should not depend on any one person to operate or survive and thrive. Philip On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Justin Herman <[email protected]> wrote: > Under this proposal we would return to the letter of our by-laws. Voting > processes listed in the proposal would be used during proposals. Steve's > proposal process would be superseded for proposals. > > Michael, I too like the idea of returning to a simple, transparent, and > easy to understand system to improve SynHak. Lets get started! > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Michael Griesacker < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> from Wikipedia: A *filibuster* is a parliamentary >> procedure<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_procedure>where debate >> is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely >> prevent a vote on a given proposal. It is sometimes referred to as *talking >> out a bill*,[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#cite_note-1>and >> characterized as a form of obstruction in a >> legislature <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature> or other >> decision-making body. >> >> so, is this to supersede Steve's proposal process? >> >> I see no mention of blocking, which I don't think I really understood >> anyways, seemed like just a more overt form of filibustering. Not against >> dropping that usage, I just want to make sure I understand. >> >> -also, this seems pretty simple and easy to understand. I like simple.... >> >> >> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Justin Herman <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Issue being resolved: >>> >>> As SynHak has grown larger, SynHak has undergone some growing pains. >>> Valuable individuals have come and been scared off by our elaborate >>> procedures and processes. Browbeating has become all too common. When >>> motions with members are seconded and modified voting has occurred >>> decisions have been able to be made without long fruitless tirades. >>> >>> A clear proposal and decision making strategy would help us avoid 3 hour >>> meetings where everyone feels like they went though a battle. Voting treats >>> all members present at the meeting and members who announce a proxy before >>> meetings to have an equal voice. In addition voting will allow us to move >>> forward and return to the meetings of the past. Our meetings could be quick >>> and productive, instead of long and tiresome. It will curb grandstanding, >>> soap-boxing, meandering of topics, and filibustering. IMO discussion is >>> vital to hash out ideas but not all discussion needs to occur during public >>> meetings. In addition voting does not need to be used at all times. >>> >>> <example: A member motions to close the meeting, someone seconds it. No >>> one speaks up for opposition. The motion passes.) (2nd example: A proposal >>> is presented do do X.Y.Z. A discussion occurs. During the discussion >>> members and non members voice their opinions. Some members agree with the >>> proposal while others don't. A member calls for a vote. A verbal vote of >>> the members in good standing and their selected proxy. A majority of more >>> than 50% of the total votes cast and the proposal passes, 50% (or less) and >>> the proposal fails with the option to be resubmitted and reapplied later.> >>> >>> >>> Proposal: >>> SynHak will follow the organization's by-laws, and use discussion and if >>> necessary, voting of the members present, in good standing, at the >>> membership meeting (including proxies) to handle all proposals that public >>> meeting discussion has show to have opposing voices. Any member can call >>> for a silent ballot but verbal ballots will be the default. For a proposal >>> to pass, more than 50% of the votes cast must agree with the proposal. >>> >>> >>> Submitted By: Justin Herman >>> Proposal Endorsed by: Devin Wolfe & Chris Neer >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
