Would it be a friendly amendment to require that any 2/3 vote would only take place after consensus has failed to be reached and the topic is therefore tabled for one week?

The idea would be that we don't just try for consensus, get fed up, then vote with 2/3 that same meeting. Instead, we have to wait a week to have a 2/3 vote anyhow, so might as well aim for the consensus with sincerely in the first place. Further, this requires we be more understanding and sensitive about the topic, without rush and anxiety, giving a chance for folks to be more prepared and in-touch with the process and will of their collective.

For the examples you provided, I think this is a consistent method, of course with cases of "bans" there shouldn't be a problem since our "safe space" policy, and any "code of conduct" should deny access to anyone from whom a rapid ban would be required. Instead, bans can be slightly delayed to ensure the wider community understands and accepts the response to individuals' and groups' actions before resolving.

// Matt

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Jenny Ryan <tunabananas@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey sudo!

At Thursday night's Omni delegates meeting, the following proposals were
put forth and are up for discussion over the next week, to be voted on
at next Thursday's Omni meeting:

1. Paying Jesse
Jesse Palmer is the Omni's lawyer and has done a phenomenal job
helping us get to where we are now. His bill totals somewhere in the
realm of $8500, which divided among 10 collectives means Sudo would
contribute ~$850.

2. Paying an additional month of rent into a reserve
Our rent for July is free, but all collectives could pay rent for the
month of July anyway to be put into a reserve fund. I think this is a
great idea, and we have the funds for it (I believe we have ~$12,000
in the bank).

3. Revision to Consensus Process:
Thus far, the Omni Collective has made decisions using a full
consensus model. The proposal on the table is for votes to strive for
full consensus, but resort to a 2/3 majority vote if consensus cannot
be achieved. This model was recommended by Jesse, who has extensive
experience representing coops and collectives who've run into problems
with full-consensus models for hairy decisions like banning an abusive
individual or - as may be the case with us - removing particular
groups/collectives from the larger collective.

Proposal : New Voting Model

All votes called by the Delegate Council are subject to two rounds of
voting. The first round passes by full consensus. If after friendly
amendments and conversation full consensus cannot be achieved, the
vote moves to a second round which passes by 2/3 majority. If this
second vote fails to pass, the vote does not carry.

This amendment to our full consensus voting procedures is proposed in
light of advice from radical comrades and colleagues who have seen
groups and projects torn apart by bad-faith exploitation of full
consensus voting. Our group's aim and aspiration will always be full
consensus, and we will always work to make sure all voices are heard.
In all of our work and decisionmaking together, let us always be
guided by fairness, kindness, and justice.

----
Please discuss any issues posed by the above proposals, make
amendments, and feel free to attend next Thursday's meeting if you'd
like to participate!

Cheers,

Jenny
http://jennyryan.net
http://thepyre.org
http://thevirtualcampfire.org
http://technomadic.tumblr.com

`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`

"Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories."
-Laurie Anderson

"Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."
-Hannah Arendt

"To define is to kill. To suggest is to create."
-Stéphane Mallarmé
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss