Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.

[a l]

I am all for no browbeating or tirades. My first question is how often do
we have actions that need taken care of immediately that fall outside the
power of the champions?
3 hour meetings are largely a result of interpersonal conflicts spilling
into meeting time. The rest of the time they are from a lack of use of the
discuss@ mailing list. By the time the proposal is called for consent/vote
--whatever-- the wording has been 95% decided. Discussion on the wording
will still take place prior to the proposal being formed. So I don't see
how voting will expedite the process. Apart from the release of funds to do
awesome projects or membership related ones we shouldn't have proposals
every week to drag out meetings.
I'm not sure this will solve meandering topics either. The moderator is
supposed to keep discussion on topic.

I would also argue that meetings of the past operated under consensus
rather than voting.

There does need to be a clear and simple way to prevent filibustering and
petty blocking. Except for filibustering I do not see voting solving the
problems you have outlined.

regards,
Andrew L


On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Andrew Buczko wrote:

> I like it. I will support this.
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Steve Radonich IV 
> wrote:
>
>> the copy online is out of date
>>
>> --
>> Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 21:57:46 -0400
>> From: gsvo...@gmail.com
>> To: discuss@synhak.org
>>
>> Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.
>>
>> Static.synhak.org should have bylaws
>> On May 14, 2014 11:50 AM, "Becca Salchak"  wrote:
>>
>> Where is there the most up to date version of or bylaws? So those of us
>> who need to do some research can
>>
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@synhak.org
>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>> ___ Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@synhak.org
>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@synhak.org
> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.

[Andrew Buczko]

I like it. I will support this.


On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Steve Radonich IV wrote:

> the copy online is out of date
>
> --
> Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 21:57:46 -0400
> From: gsvo...@gmail.com
> To: discuss@synhak.org
>
> Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.
>
> Static.synhak.org should have bylaws
> On May 14, 2014 11:50 AM, "Becca Salchak"  wrote:
>
> Where is there the most up to date version of or bylaws? So those of us
> who need to do some research can
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@synhak.org
> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> ___ Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@synhak.org
> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.

[Steve Radonich IV]

the copy online is out of date

Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 21:57:46 -0400
From: gsvo...@gmail.com
To: discuss@synhak.org
Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.

Static.synhak.org should have bylaws
On May 14, 2014 11:50 AM, "Becca Salchak"  wrote:

Where is there the most up to date version of or bylaws? So those of us who 
need to do some research can

___

Discuss mailing list

Discuss@synhak.org

https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss 
  ___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.

[gs volt]

Static.synhak.org should have bylaws
On May 14, 2014 11:50 AM, "Becca Salchak"  wrote:

> Where is there the most up to date version of or bylaws? So those of us
> who need to do some research can
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@synhak.org
> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.

[Philip P. Patnode]

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  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 <
> mgriesac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> from Wikipedia: A *filibuster* is a parliamentary 
>> procedurewhere 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] and 
>> characterized as a form of obstruction in a
>> 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 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.
>>>
>>> >> 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
>>> Discuss@synhak.org
>>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@synhak.org
>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@synhak.org
> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing l

Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.

[Becca Salchak]

Where is there the most up to date version of or bylaws? So those of us who
need to do some research can
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.

[Justin Herman]

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
wrote:

> from Wikipedia: A *filibuster* is a parliamentary 
> procedurewhere 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]  and
> characterized as a form of obstruction in a 
> legislatureor 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  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.
>>
>> > 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
>> Discuss@synhak.org
>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@synhak.org
> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.

[Steve Radonich IV]

You can add me to those who endorse this

--- Original Message ---

From: "Michael Griesacker" 
Sent: May 14, 2014 11:11 AM
To: "SYN/HAK discussion list" 
Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.

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  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.
>
>  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
> Discuss@synhak.org
> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.

[Michael Griesacker]

from Wikipedia: A *filibuster* is a parliamentary
procedurewhere
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]  and
characterized as a form of obstruction in a
legislatureor 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  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.
>
>  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
> Discuss@synhak.org
> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[SH-Discuss] Proposal to manage proposal approval.

[Justin Herman]

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.




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
Discuss@synhak.org
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss