19 Jul
2014
19 Jul
'14
7:53 p.m.
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
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
19 Jul
19 Jul
10:59 p.m.
New subject: [OMNI] Proposals up for consensus
We should pay our debts to the attorney. And we should pay rent as
though it we were required to pay it.
But for the consensus process, I think there should be limits in place
if we're going to use majority voting. If we're going to be using
majority voting, it should only be used to secure the space for the
collectives. There was an issue at another space where they needed to
get a permit to stay open, but somebody blocked consensus and used it as
leverage. I think using majority voting should be used ONLY for issues
that would prevent us from using the space and that those things should
be defined as explicitly as possible. For instance, we could use
majority voting for suspensions or bans.
Not to mention, I think the majority should be three-fourths or
four-fifths if we're really making an exception to consensus based on an
individual with bad intentions. Also, I'm not sure why we would have a
consensus vote if we were to switch a majority vote afterwards--that's
just a majority vote.
And lastly, is anybody interested in creating a proposal for a
distributed delegates for our collective? We would vote as a collective,
but it would give our members the opportunity to raise concerns and
issues about a decision at the main meeting instead of waiting to hear
back from a delegate.
On 07/19/2014 07:53 PM, Jenny Ryan 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(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
20 Jul
20 Jul
2:10 a.m.
New subject: [OMNI] Proposals up for consensus
Sudo Room decided we would use various voting procedures for particular
circumstances because we anticipated those issues arising and wanted to
prevent our own immobility on them. I think this can be a good idea:
Can you (or anyone) generate a simple list of all the types of decisions
the Omni Collective may consider in which perhaps a different sort of
decision procedure than consensus should be used (e.g. a vote, and
therefore some type of vote such as a super majority [some value over 50%]
or simple majority vote [50%])?
I suggested in another email (did not see this reply at first) that we
should consider allowing consensus to fail, and requiring we then table the
item for one week before a 2/3 vote (or similar) can be held, encouraging
clarity, accountability, feedback, and level-headedness.
// Matt
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Jeremy Entwistle <jwentwistle(a)cryptolab.net
wrote:
We should pay our debts to the attorney. And we should
pay rent as
though it we were required to pay it.
But for the consensus process, I think there should be limits in place
if we're going to use majority voting. If we're going to be using
majority voting, it should only be used to secure the space for the
collectives. There was an issue at another space where they needed to
get a permit to stay open, but somebody blocked consensus and used it as
leverage. I think using majority voting should be used ONLY for issues
that would prevent us from using the space and that those things should
be defined as explicitly as possible. For instance, we could use
majority voting for suspensions or bans.
Not to mention, I think the majority should be three-fourths or
four-fifths if we're really making an exception to consensus based on an
individual with bad intentions. Also, I'm not sure why we would have a
consensus vote if we were to switch a majority vote afterwards--that's
just a majority vote.
And lastly, is anybody interested in creating a proposal for a
distributed delegates for our collective? We would vote as a collective,
but it would give our members the opportunity to raise concerns and
issues about a decision at the main meeting instead of waiting to hear
back from a delegate.
On 07/19/2014 07:53 PM, Jenny Ryan 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(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
22 Jul
22 Jul
4:13 p.m.
New subject: [OMNI] Proposals up for consensus
On 07/20/2014 02:10 AM, Matthew Senate wrote:
Sudo Room decided we would use various voting
procedures for particular
circumstances because we anticipated those issues arising and wanted to
prevent our own immobility on them. I think this can be a good idea:
Can you (or anyone) generate a simple list of all the types of decisions
the Omni Collective may consider in which perhaps a different sort of
decision procedure than consensus should be used (e.g. a vote, and
therefore some type of vote such as a super majority [some value over 50%]
or simple majority vote [50%])?
Yes! Here are some things that may need to happen and could be
threatened by a person who doesn't want it to happen, which would then
need a majority vote:
* pay rent, utilities, and other liabilities to the space
* submit legal documentation (permits, etc)
* suspensions and bans (if banned from a collective)
I think of the omni collective as those who ensure the space may be used
by the collectives and prevent conflicts when there's a disagreement
between them. I don't think of it as something that approves of
everything we do or resolves individual's conflicts.
Otherwise, I think we should be using consensus. It's not about asking
for approval to do something, its about making decisions that improve
the space for everybody. I don't want to tell anybody they can't do
anything until approved by everybody, but rather say they can do
everything but these things. Some of these things might be:
* changing the structure of the building
* restricting access to the space by changing access control
* painting common areas or removing flooring
* using the common areas when something has been scheduled
I still think we should define what it means to be a collective at the
omni. And some of that definition should require the collectives to have
a code of conduct. I most definitely agree we should be very delicate
about how we discuss and decide resolutions for these issues, especially
if we're asking everybody to agree to them and feel empowered to enforce
the decisions.
I suggested in another email (did not see this reply at first) that we
should consider allowing consensus to fail, and requiring we then table the
item for one week before a 2/3 vote (or similar) can be held, encouraging
clarity, accountability, feedback, and level-headedness.
// Matt
In my experience, when you have the option to wait for the majority
vote, that's what happens. We should enable ourselves to do things that
secure the space for all the collective by using a majority vote for
some things, but use consensus when we're creating rules that will
affect everybody. The bigger the majority, the more it demonstrates our
confidence in the decision.
I feel how we make decisions and how those decisions are enforced is
what makes this different from the rest of the world. I feel it's why
there's so much beauty in it!
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Jeremy Entwistle <jwentwistle(a)cryptolab.net
wrote:
We should pay our debts to the attorney. And we
should pay rent as
though it we were required to pay it.
But for the consensus process, I think there should be limits in place
if we're going to use majority voting. If we're going to be using
majority voting, it should only be used to secure the space for the
collectives. There was an issue at another space where they needed to
get a permit to stay open, but somebody blocked consensus and used it as
leverage. I think using majority voting should be used ONLY for issues
that would prevent us from using the space and that those things should
be defined as explicitly as possible. For instance, we could use
majority voting for suspensions or bans.
Not to mention, I think the majority should be three-fourths or
four-fifths if we're really making an exception to consensus based on an
individual with bad intentions. Also, I'm not sure why we would have a
consensus vote if we were to switch a majority vote afterwards--that's
just a majority vote.
And lastly, is anybody interested in creating a proposal for a
distributed delegates for our collective? We would vote as a collective,
but it would give our members the opportunity to raise concerns and
issues about a decision at the main meeting instead of waiting to hear
back from a delegate.
On 07/19/2014 07:53 PM, Jenny Ryan 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(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
5:38 p.m.
New subject: [OMNI] Proposals up for consensus
I definitely think there is value in having something else than unanimous
consensus for certain types of votes - whether it's N-2, 2/3 or 50%.
Some routine votes need to be made in a more lightweight fashion, and it
would be good if we could do without the built-in 1 week delay we have with
our current model. in other cases, there may be an issue that has already
gone through a de facto consensus process - e.g. a proposal from a working
group that has been worked out very publicly, and on which the WG itself
has already reached a consensus.
If we do go with a % vote on certain issues, we may also want to consider
limiting that vote to delegates-only for some of those. Otherwise, it may
become too easy for some special interest group to stack the delegates
meeting to reach the required percentage.
Patrik
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Jeremy Entwistle <jwentwistle(a)cryptolab.net
wrote:
>
> On 07/20/2014 02:10 AM, Matthew Senate wrote:
> > Sudo Room decided we would use various voting procedures for particular
> > circumstances because we anticipated those issues arising and wanted to
> > prevent our own immobility on them. I think this can be a good idea:
> >
> > Can you (or anyone) generate a simple list of all the types of decisions
> > the Omni Collective may consider in which perhaps a different sort of
> > decision procedure than consensus should be used (e.g. a vote, and
> > therefore some type of vote such as a super majority [some value over
> 50%]
> > or simple majority vote [50%])?
>
> Yes! Here are some things that may need to happen and could be
> threatened by a person who doesn't want it to happen, which would then
> need a majority vote:
>
> * pay rent, utilities, and other liabilities to the space
> * submit legal documentation (permits, etc)
> * suspensions and bans (if banned from a collective)
>
> I think of the omni collective as those who ensure the space may be used
> by the collectives and prevent conflicts when there's a disagreement
> between them. I don't think of it as something that approves of
> everything we do or resolves individual's conflicts.
>
> Otherwise, I think we should be using consensus. It's not about asking
> for approval to do something, its about making decisions that improve
> the space for everybody. I don't want to tell anybody they can't do
> anything until approved by everybody, but rather say they can do
> everything but these things. Some of these things might be:
>
> * changing the structure of the building
> * restricting access to the space by changing access control
> * painting common areas or removing flooring
> * using the common areas when something has been scheduled
>
> I still think we should define what it means to be a collective at the
> omni. And some of that definition should require the collectives to have
> a code of conduct. I most definitely agree we should be very delicate
> about how we discuss and decide resolutions for these issues, especially
> if we're asking everybody to agree to them and feel empowered to enforce
> the decisions.
>
> >
> > I suggested in another email (did not see this reply at first) that we
> > should consider allowing consensus to fail, and requiring we then table
> the
> > item for one week before a 2/3 vote (or similar) can be held, encouraging
> > clarity, accountability, feedback, and level-headedness.
> >
> > // Matt
> >
>
> In my experience, when you have the option to wait for the majority
> vote, that's what happens. We should enable ourselves to do things that
> secure the space for all the collective by using a majority vote for
> some things, but use consensus when we're creating rules that will
> affect everybody. The bigger the majority, the more it demonstrates our
> confidence in the decision.
>
> I feel how we make decisions and how those decisions are enforced is
> what makes this different from the rest of the world. I feel it's why
> there's so much beauty in it!
>
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Jeremy Entwistle <
> jwentwistle(a)cryptolab.net
> > wrote:
> >
> >> We should pay our debts to the attorney. And we should pay rent as
> >> though it we were required to pay it.
> >>
> >> But for the consensus process, I think there should be limits in place
> >> if we're going to use majority voting. If we're going to be using
> >> majority voting, it should only be used to secure the space for the
> >> collectives. There was an issue at another space where they needed to
> >> get a permit to stay open, but somebody blocked consensus and used it as
> >> leverage. I think using majority voting should be used ONLY for issues
> >> that would prevent us from using the space and that those things should
> >> be defined as explicitly as possible. For instance, we could use
> >> majority voting for suspensions or bans.
> >>
> >> Not to mention, I think the majority should be three-fourths or
> >> four-fifths if we're really making an exception to consensus based on
an
> >> individual with bad intentions. Also, I'm not sure why we would have a
> >> consensus vote if we were to switch a majority vote afterwards--that's
> >> just a majority vote.
> >>
> >> And lastly, is anybody interested in creating a proposal for a
> >> distributed delegates for our collective? We would vote as a collective,
> >> but it would give our members the opportunity to raise concerns and
> >> issues about a decision at the main meeting instead of waiting to hear
> >> back from a delegate.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 07/19/2014 07:53 PM, Jenny Ryan 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(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> >>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> sudo-discuss mailing list
> >> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> >> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
10:49 p.m.
New subject: [OMNI] Proposals up for consensus
A few more thoughts/questions:
* Isn't a block only valid if the argument can be made that it violates
some shared values/mission/purpose? I see there is a Vision document
document for the Omni, but I don't know if a Mission statement exists;
perhaps, someone can illuminate.
* How does sudoroom choose delegates? I know Jenny is a delegate. Is Jenny
the only sudoroom delegate? Is this a frequently rotating position? I
apologize if this is already documented, but I couldn't find it in the wiki.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Patrik D'haeseleer <patrikd(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I definitely think there is value in having something
else than unanimous
consensus for certain types of votes - whether it's N-2, 2/3 or 50%.
Some routine votes need to be made in a more lightweight fashion, and it
would be good if we could do without the built-in 1 week delay we have with
our current model. in other cases, there may be an issue that has already
gone through a de facto consensus process - e.g. a proposal from a working
group that has been worked out very publicly, and on which the WG itself
has already reached a consensus.
If we do go with a % vote on certain issues, we may also want to consider
limiting that vote to delegates-only for some of those. Otherwise, it may
become too easy for some special interest group to stack the delegates
meeting to reach the required percentage.
Patrik
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Jeremy Entwistle <
jwentwistle(a)cryptolab.net> wrote:
On 07/20/2014 02:10 AM, Matthew Senate wrote:
as
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
Sudo Room decided we would use various voting
procedures for particular
circumstances because we anticipated those issues arising and wanted to
prevent our own immobility on them. I think this can be a good idea:
Can you (or anyone) generate a simple list of all the types of decisions
the Omni Collective may consider in which perhaps a different sort of
decision procedure than consensus should be used (e.g. a vote, and
therefore some type of vote such as a super majority [some value over
50%]
or simple majority vote [50%])?
Yes! Here are some things that may need to happen and could be
threatened by a person who doesn't want it to happen, which would then
need a majority vote:
* pay rent, utilities, and other liabilities to the space
* submit legal documentation (permits, etc)
* suspensions and bans (if banned from a collective)
I think of the omni collective as those who ensure the space may be used
by the collectives and prevent conflicts when there's a disagreement
between them. I don't think of it as something that approves of
everything we do or resolves individual's conflicts.
Otherwise, I think we should be using consensus. It's not about asking
for approval to do something, its about making decisions that improve
the space for everybody. I don't want to tell anybody they can't do
anything until approved by everybody, but rather say they can do
everything but these things. Some of these things might be:
* changing the structure of the building
* restricting access to the space by changing access control
* painting common areas or removing flooring
* using the common areas when something has been scheduled
I still think we should define what it means to be a collective at the
omni. And some of that definition should require the collectives to have
a code of conduct. I most definitely agree we should be very delicate
about how we discuss and decide resolutions for these issues, especially
if we're asking everybody to agree to them and feel empowered to enforce
the decisions.
I suggested in another email (did not see this reply at first) that we
should consider allowing consensus to fail, and requiring we then table
the
item for one week before a 2/3 vote (or similar)
can be held,
encouraging
clarity, accountability, feedback, and
level-headedness.
// Matt
In my experience, when you have the option to wait for the majority
vote, that's what happens. We should enable ourselves to do things that
secure the space for all the collective by using a majority vote for
some things, but use consensus when we're creating rules that will
affect everybody. The bigger the majority, the more it demonstrates our
confidence in the decision.
I feel how we make decisions and how those decisions are enforced is
what makes this different from the rest of the world. I feel it's why
there's so much beauty in it!
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Jeremy Entwistle <
jwentwistle(a)cryptolab.net
wrote:
> We should pay our debts to the attorney. And we should pay rent as
> though it we were required to pay it.
>
> But for the consensus process, I think there should be limits in place
> if we're going to use majority voting. If we're going to be using
> majority voting, it should only be used to secure the space for the
> collectives. There was an issue at another space where they needed to
> get a permit to stay open, but somebody blocked consensus and used it > leverage. I think using majority voting
should be used ONLY for issues
> that would prevent us from using the space and that those things should
> be defined as explicitly as possible. For instance, we could use
> majority voting for suspensions or bans.
>
> Not to mention, I think the majority should be three-fourths or
> four-fifths if we're really making an exception to consensus based on
an
> individual with bad intentions. Also, I'm
not sure why we would have a
> consensus vote if we were to switch a majority vote afterwards--that's
> just a majority vote.
>
> And lastly, is anybody interested in creating a proposal for a
> distributed delegates for our collective? We would vote as a
collective,
> but it would give our members the opportunity
to raise concerns and
> issues about a decision at the main meeting instead of waiting to hear
> back from a delegate.
>
>
> On 07/19/2014 07:53 PM, Jenny Ryan 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(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
11:09 p.m.
New subject: [OMNI] Proposals up for consensus
my understanding is that only the designated delegates from each
collective have voting power at ooc meetings. also, working groups are
not vested with any decisionmaking power that has been publicly
discussed. agree on not having a built-in 2-week delay on decisions.
maintaining transparency in all ooc organs is par for such a course, and
if the discussions are transparent, the burden would be on the would-be
blocker to speak up prior to the final consensus item.
On 2014-07-22 17:38, Patrik D'haeseleer wrote:
I definitely think there is value in having something
else than unanimous consensus for certain types of votes - whether it's N-2, 2/3 or
50%.
Some routine votes need to be made in a more lightweight fashion, and it would be good if
we could do without the built-in 1 week delay we have with our current model. in other
cases, there may be an issue that has already gone through a de facto consensus process -
e.g. a proposal from a working group that has been worked out very publicly, and on which
the WG itself has already reached a consensus.
If we do go with a % vote on certain issues, we may also want to consider limiting that
vote to delegates-only for some of those. Otherwise, it may become too easy for some
special interest group to stack the delegates meeting to reach the required percentage.
Patrik
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Jeremy Entwistle <jwentwistle(a)cryptolab.net>
wrote:
Links:
------
[1] http://jennyryan.net
[2] http://thepyre.org
[3] http://thevirtualcampfire.org
[4] http://technomadic.tumblr.com
[5] https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
On 07/20/2014 02:10 AM, Matthew Senate wrote:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [5] Sudo Room decided we would use various voting
procedures for particular
circumstances because we anticipated those issues arising and wanted to
prevent our own immobility on them. I think this can be a good idea:
Can you (or anyone) generate a simple list of all the types of decisions
the Omni Collective may consider in which perhaps a different sort of
decision procedure than consensus should be used (e.g. a vote, and
therefore some type of vote such as a super majority [some value over 50%]
or simple majority vote [50%])?
Yes! Here are some things that may need to happen and could be
threatened by a person who doesn't want it to happen, which would then
need a majority vote:
* pay rent, utilities, and other liabilities to the space
* submit legal documentation (permits, etc)
* suspensions and bans (if banned from a collective)
I think of the omni collective as those who ensure the space may be used
by the collectives and prevent conflicts when there's a disagreement
between them. I don't think of it as something that approves of
everything we do or resolves individual's conflicts.
Otherwise, I think we should be using consensus. It's not about asking
for approval to do something, its about making decisions that improve
the space for everybody. I don't want to tell anybody they can't do
anything until approved by everybody, but rather say they can do
everything but these things. Some of these things might be:
* changing the structure of the building
* restricting access to the space by changing access control
* painting common areas or removing flooring
* using the common areas when something has been scheduled
I still think we should define what it means to be a collective at the
omni. And some of that definition should require the collectives to have
a code of conduct. I most definitely agree we should be very delicate
about how we discuss and decide resolutions for these issues, especially
if we're asking everybody to agree to them and feel empowered to enforce
the decisions.
I suggested in another email (did not see this reply at first) that we
should consider allowing consensus to fail, and requiring we then table the
item for one week before a 2/3 vote (or similar) can be held, encouraging
clarity, accountability, feedback, and level-headedness.
// Matt
In my experience, when you have the option to wait for the majority
vote, that's what happens. We should enable ourselves to do things that
secure the space for all the collective by using a majority vote for
some things, but use consensus when we're creating rules that will
affect everybody. The bigger the majority, the more it demonstrates our
confidence in the decision.
I feel how we make decisions and how those decisions are enforced is
what makes this different from the rest of the world. I feel it's why
there's so much beauty in it!
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Jeremy Entwistle <jwentwistle(a)cryptolab.net
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [5] wrote:
We should pay our debts to the attorney. And we
should pay rent as
though it we were required to pay it.
But for the consensus process, I think there should be limits in place
if we're going to use majority voting. If we're going to be using
majority voting, it should only be used to secure the space for the
collectives. There was an issue at another space where they needed to
get a permit to stay open, but somebody blocked consensus and used it as
leverage. I think using majority voting should be used ONLY for issues
that would prevent us from using the space and that those things should
be defined as explicitly as possible. For instance, we could use
majority voting for suspensions or bans.
Not to mention, I think the majority should be three-fourths or
four-fifths if we're really making an exception to consensus based on an
individual with bad intentions. Also, I'm not sure why we would have a
consensus vote if we were to switch a majority vote afterwards--that's
just a majority vote.
And lastly, is anybody interested in creating a proposal for a
distributed delegates for our collective? We would vote as a collective,
but it would give our members the opportunity to raise concerns and
issues about a decision at the main meeting instead of waiting to hear
back from a delegate.
On 07/19/2014 07:53 PM, Jenny Ryan 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 [1]
> http://thepyre.org [2]
> http://thevirtualcampfire.org [3]
> http://technomadic.tumblr.com [4]
>
> `~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
> "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(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [5]
>
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [5]
23 Jul
23 Jul
12:36 a.m.
New subject: [OMNI] Proposals up for consensus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thanks everyone for the valuable feedback and suggestions! I agree with
many of the sentiments expressed on this thread.
I've started organizing the responses to this proposal here:
https://pad.riseup.net/p/omnivoting
I would ask that anyone interested in voting procedures in the Omni
assist in fine-tuning the 'Amendments' section at the top of the page.
You can also join us at the sudo meeting tomorrow or the Omni meeting
Thursday at 7pm. I will do my best to articulate the concerns of
everyone in this thread.
To that end, anyone is welcome to come to a Thursday meeting and speak
to the topics at hand. I would very much like to hand off delegatory
responsibility to another awesome sudoer! (Jeremy? Arnas? Julio?) and
would support a regular rotating sudo delegate. Yar is also a sudo
delegate - we have been trading the role off as our schedules allow :)
Arnas did a great job standing in for me improv last week when I wanted
to focus on mesh.
I would like to focus on mesh more! I am also involved in three of
Omni's working groups, bottom-lining one of them (though I've slacked a
bit over June/July due to travels). Want to help with communications,
building maintenance, challenging dominant culture, or governance? Have
another idea for a much-needed working group? Ping me, or join the
mailing list, or add to the wiki, or come to a meeting. Omni calendar
is at http://wiki.omni-oakland.org/w/Calendar
Very pertinent to this thread are the notes from tonight's Omni
governance meeting [1], in which we call for decentralization of power
and responsibility through increasing the autonomy of working groups,
propose adoption of a Safe Space Policy / Code of Conduct among all
collectives [2], request that each collective either create a Conflict
Resolution Process or adopt the Omni's (which has adopted Sudo's) [3],
and propose a new meeting format in which we begin our Thursday
meetings with breakout sessions for each working group to work
independently, then report-back to the larger group.
We're doing something awesome here: Making history. All hands on deck!
<3
Jenny
[1]
http://wiki.omni-oakland.org/w/Event:2014/07/22_Governance_Meeting#Action_I…
[2] http://wiki.omni-oakland.org/w/Safe_Space_Policy
[3] http://wiki.omni-oakland.org/w/Conflict_Resolution_Policy
- ----
http://jennyryan.net
http://sudomesh.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
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTz2YDAAoJEHTWWpBUSeDhPZsH/jBCVcCDq2Qdfo66co3YIbGa
zaBqkKcH+prARTu7shJtNAWgN6ikBohA2mvgv9cDr9lWZS9Ca03l6PX2THDBjfGR
HSOXhrsGSRrfxtinuzkTqKdP30Vr16dU57Ld6WgzRYSD3zkbo2VCKHKRmlFmT/a2
aDdY7yv8PX7MflGZlAuztD+7UWMzLI3fpsNRMz5NpPfAjsD95x4Ee8hiSk462hpH
jAcU69MzrOFTDSFW8uKdp08OUmhxp55/Gd9EIgLs2Gf6MSvaEswJ0B09nC02qtJJ
hIT5SabHpDNdqQTwG8zuxBJDKQrEt5E8VYI/rMTY21B1iuU/KSV7tmiK1sANwjw=
=znhH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8:10 a.m.
New subject: [omnilogistics] [OMNI] Proposals up for consensus
jenny this is awesome work, thank you for compiling all this and taking
the time to consistently represent us at ooc meetings along with yar
On 2014-07-23 00:36, Jenny Ryan wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thanks everyone for the valuable feedback and suggestions! I agree with
many of the sentiments expressed on this thread.
I've started organizing the responses to this proposal here:
https://pad.riseup.net/p/omnivoting [1]
I would ask that anyone interested in voting procedures in the Omni
assist in fine-tuning the 'Amendments' section at the top of the page.
You can also join us at the sudo meeting tomorrow or the Omni meeting
Thursday at 7pm. I will do my best to articulate the concerns of
everyone in this thread.
To that end, anyone is welcome to come to a Thursday meeting and speak
to the topics at hand. I would very much like to hand off delegatory
responsibility to another awesome sudoer! (Jeremy? Arnas? Julio?) and
would support a regular rotating sudo delegate. Yar is also a sudo
delegate - we have been trading the role off as our schedules allow :)
Arnas did a great job standing in for me improv last week when I wanted
to focus on mesh.
I would like to focus on mesh more! I am also involved in three of
Omni's working groups, bottom-lining one of them (though I've slacked a
bit over June/July due to travels). Want to help with communications,
building maintenance, challenging dominant culture, or governance? Have
another idea for a much-needed working group? Ping me, or join the
mailing list, or add to the wiki, or come to a meeting. Omni calendar
is at http://wiki.omni-oakland.org/w/Calendar [2]
Very pertinent to this thread are the notes from tonight's Omni
governance meeting [1 [3]], in which we call for decentralization of power
and responsibility through increasing the autonomy of working groups,
propose adoption of a Safe Space Policy / Code of Conduct among all
collectives [2 [4]], request that each collective either create a Conflict
Resolution Process or adopt the Omni's (which has adopted Sudo's) [3 [5]],
and propose a new meeting format in which we begin our Thursday
meetings with breakout sessions for each working group to work
independently, then report-back to the larger group.
We're doing something awesome here: Making history. All hands on deck!
<3
Jenny
[1]
http://wiki.omni-oakland.org/w/Event:2014/07/22_Governance_Meeting#Action_I… [3]
[2] http://wiki.omni-oakland.org/w/Safe_Space_Policy [4]
[3] http://wiki.omni-oakland.org/w/Conflict_Resolution_Policy [5]
- ----
http://jennyryan.net [6]
http://sudomesh.org [7]
http://thevirtualcampfire.org [8]
http://technomadic.tumblr.com [9]
`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
"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
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
Links:
------
[1] https://pad.riseup.net/p/omnivoting
[2] http://wiki.omni-oakland.org/w/Calendar
[3]
http://wiki.omni-oakland.org/w/Event:2014/07/22_Governance_Meeting#Action_I…
[4] http://wiki.omni-oakland.org/w/Safe_Space_Policy
[5] http://wiki.omni-oakland.org/w/Conflict_Resolution_Policy
[6] http://jennyryan.net
[7] http://sudomesh.org
[8] http://thevirtualcampfire.org
[9] http://technomadic.tumblr.com
[10] http://www.enigmail.net/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ [10]
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTz2YDAAoJEHTWWpBUSeDhPZsH/jBCVcCDq2Qdfo66co3YIbGa
zaBqkKcH+prARTu7shJtNAWgN6ikBohA2mvgv9cDr9lWZS9Ca03l6PX2THDBjfGR
HSOXhrsGSRrfxtinuzkTqKdP30Vr16dU57Ld6WgzRYSD3zkbo2VCKHKRmlFmT/a2
aDdY7yv8PX7MflGZlAuztD+7UWMzLI3fpsNRMz5NpPfAjsD95x4Ee8hiSk462hpH
jAcU69MzrOFTDSFW8uKdp08OUmhxp55/Gd9EIgLs2Gf6MSvaEswJ0B09nC02qtJJ
hIT5SabHpDNdqQTwG8zuxBJDKQrEt5E8VYI/rMTY21B1iuU/KSV7tmiK1sANwjw=
=znhH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
20 Jul
20 Jul
1:46 a.m.
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(a)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(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
22 Jul
22 Jul
1:53 a.m.
I agree with Matt.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Matthew Senate <mattsenate(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
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(a)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(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
5:12 a.m.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Jenny Ryan <tunabananas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Jenny!
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.
I am blocking this one. We can implement different voting models for
specific types of decisions similar to what sudo has. Revoking consensus
completely is a lazy solution (and yes, this suggestion is equivalent to
revoking consensus as the decision-making process).
--
marc/juul
10:19 a.m.
i personally wouldn't block this, but i think if we move toward a 2/3
majority, the larger collectives should get additional delegates.
also - has jesse provided an invoice for his work so far? seems like we
should see the invoice before agreeing to pay, as a matter of
professional services protocol and recordkeeping.
On 2014-07-22 05:12, Marc Juul wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Jenny Ryan
<tunabananas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Jenny!
Links:
------
[1] https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
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.
I am blocking this one. We can implement different voting models for specific types of
decisions similar to what sudo has. Revoking consensus completely is a lazy solution (and
yes, this suggestion is equivalent to revoking consensus as the decision-making process).
--
marc/juul
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [1]
10:31 a.m.
just to clarify - i think we should definitely pay jesse without hassle
or haggle, just procedure :)
On 2014-07-22 10:19, hol(a)gaskill.com wrote:
i personally wouldn't block this, but i think if
we move toward a 2/3 majority, the larger collectives should get additional delegates.
also - has jesse provided an invoice for his work so far? seems like we should see the
invoice before agreeing to pay, as a matter of professional services protocol and
recordkeeping.
On 2014-07-22 05:12, Marc Juul wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Jenny Ryan <tunabananas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Jenny!
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.
I am blocking this one. We can implement different voting models for specific types of
decisions similar to what sudo has. Revoking consensus completely is a lazy solution (and
yes, this suggestion is equivalent to revoking consensus as the decision-making process).
--
marc/juul
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [1]
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [1]
Links:
------
[1] https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
3:08 p.m.
I agree with Marc's position too. I mostly wanted to take the position
that a majority vote should be used as a last resort only, rather than as a
rule, which it would eventually become if we start introducing this as a
formal rule (the exception becomes the rule) .... but having different
voting processes for different types of decisions makes more sense.
Also, I don't know if this is already the process, but as a way to move
through tough situations, we could consider that at least one other member
has to express support for a block in order to validate it... The 2/3 rule
is sounding worse the more I think about it: you could have 3 members
expressly against a proposal and still approve it. That may not be
sustainable long term.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:31 AM, <hol(a)gaskill.com> wrote:
just to clarify - i think we should definitely pay
jesse without hassle
or haggle, just procedure :)
On 2014-07-22 10:19, hol(a)gaskill.com wrote:
i personally wouldn't block this, but i think if we move toward a 2/3
majority, the larger collectives should get additional delegates.
also - has jesse provided an invoice for his work so far? seems like we
should see the invoice before agreeing to pay, as a matter of professional
services protocol and recordkeeping.
On 2014-07-22 05:12, Marc Juul wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Jenny Ryan <tunabananas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Jenny!
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.
I am blocking this one. We can implement different voting models for
specific types of decisions similar to what sudo has. Revoking consensus
completely is a lazy solution (and yes, this suggestion is equivalent to
revoking consensus as the decision-making process).
--
marc/juul
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing
listsudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.orghttps://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing
listsudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.orghttps://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
4:09 p.m.
I am sympathetic to everyone's concerns re: the 2/3 rule.
The reason it was proposed was to prevent any sort of hostile take over
wherein one or two members block everything and nothing is able to get
done. Jesse cautioned us about this after seeing it happen with other
collectives operating on a 100% consensus model who were eventually forced
to dissolve.
I'd love for us to come up with something that both protects us and allows
for the most amount of consensus / participation..
As for larger collectives having multiple delegates, I'd be interested in
exploring thoughts around this - primarily: how membership is determined by
each collective and what level of participation is expected from members
(is just being on a mailing list enough?).
This isn't a judgement in any way, simply a pondering.. does the level of
commitment to a project and the amount of work put in have any impact
(respecting, of course, that we cannot all equally contribute)?
For instance (and this is purely hypothetical), say a collective has 1,000
members but only 2 ever make contributions to the collectivity while
another collective has 50 members who all contribute a significant amount.
Should the 1,000 member collective have greater representation in matter
requiring a vote?
xo
N
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Julio Rios <julio.rios(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Marc's position too. I mostly wanted
to take the position
that a majority vote should be used as a last resort only, rather than as a
rule, which it would eventually become if we start introducing this as a
formal rule (the exception becomes the rule) .... but having different
voting processes for different types of decisions makes more sense.
Also, I don't know if this is already the process, but as a way to move
through tough situations, we could consider that at least one other member
has to express support for a block in order to validate it... The 2/3 rule
is sounding worse the more I think about it: you could have 3 members
expressly against a proposal and still approve it. That may not be
sustainable long term.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:31 AM, <hol(a)gaskill.com> wrote:
just to clarify - i think we should definitely
pay jesse without hassle
or haggle, just procedure :)
On 2014-07-22 10:19, hol(a)gaskill.com wrote:
i personally wouldn't block this, but i think if we move toward a 2/3
majority, the larger collectives should get additional delegates.
also - has jesse provided an invoice for his work so far? seems like we
should see the invoice before agreeing to pay, as a matter of professional
services protocol and recordkeeping.
On 2014-07-22 05:12, Marc Juul wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Jenny Ryan <tunabananas(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks Jenny!
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
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.
I am blocking this one. We can implement different voting models for
specific types of decisions similar to what sudo has. Revoking consensus
completely is a lazy solution (and yes, this suggestion is equivalent to
revoking consensus as the decision-making process).
--
marc/juul
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing
listsudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.orghttps://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing
listsudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.orghttps://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
4:24 p.m.
from the wiki:
HOW DO I BECOME A MEMBER?
* Introduce yourself in person or on the mailing list [1] or at a
meeting
* Pay some dues [2] or do some work like cleaning, etc
* Create a wiki user page or email some contact info to
info(a)sudoroom.org
* Wait a short while
* _POOF!_ You're a member!
On 2014-07-22 16:09, niki wrote:
I am sympathetic to everyone's concerns re: the
2/3 rule.
The reason it was proposed was to prevent any sort of hostile take over wherein one or
two members block everything and nothing is able to get done. Jesse cautioned us about
this after seeing it happen with other collectives operating on a 100% consensus model who
were eventually forced to dissolve.
I'd love for us to come up with something that both protects us and allows for the
most amount of consensus / participation..
As for larger collectives having multiple delegates, I'd be interested in exploring
thoughts around this - primarily: how membership is determined by each collective and what
level of participation is expected from members (is just being on a mailing list enough?).
This isn't a judgement in any way, simply a pondering.. does the level of commitment
to a project and the amount of work put in have any impact (respecting, of course, that we
cannot all equally contribute)?
For instance (and this is purely hypothetical), say a collective has 1,000 members but
only 2 ever make contributions to the collectivity while another collective has 50 members
who all contribute a significant amount. Should the 1,000 member collective have greater
representation in matter requiring a vote?
xo
N
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Julio Rios <julio.rios(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with Marc's position too. I mostly wanted to take the position that a
majority vote should be used as a last resort only, rather than as a rule, which it would
eventually become if we start introducing this as a formal rule (the exception becomes the
rule) .... but having different voting processes for different types of decisions makes
more sense.
Also, I don't know if this is already the process, but as a way to move through tough
situations, we could consider that at least one other member has to express support for a
block in order to validate it... The 2/3 rule is sounding worse the more I think about it:
you could have 3 members expressly against a proposal and still approve it. That may not
be sustainable long term.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:31 AM, <hol(a)gaskill.com> wrote:
just to clarify - i think we should definitely pay jesse without hassle or haggle, just
procedure :)
On 2014-07-22 10:19, hol(a)gaskill.com wrote:
i personally wouldn't block this, but i think if we move toward a 2/3 majority, the
larger collectives should get additional delegates.
also - has jesse provided an invoice for his work so far? seems like we should see the
invoice before agreeing to pay, as a matter of professional services protocol and
recordkeeping.
On 2014-07-22 05:12, Marc Juul wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Jenny Ryan <tunabananas(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Jenny!
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.
I am blocking this one. We can implement different voting models for specific types of
decisions similar to what sudo has. Revoking consensus completely is a lazy solution (and
yes, this suggestion is equivalent to revoking consensus as the decision-making process).
--
marc/juul
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [1]
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [1]
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [1]
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss [1]
Links:
------
[1] https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
[2] https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Gittip
5:15 p.m.
I'm kind of disinclined to the proportionate representation based on number
of members. If there's a good reason for this distinction (I'm not sure
there is), I would more likely support proportions to rent or other
contributions as Niki suggested.
Unless I'm missing something, each group is like a committee, so if
organized by consensus on two levels, should, in the normal case, the
entire process is driven consensus anyway. Exceptions based on majority
voting should still have the spirit of consensus, so I'm not sure giving
more weight to one group vs another makes sense... Or am I being
simplistic?
On Jul 22, 2014 4:24 PM, <hol(a)gaskill.com> wrote:
from the wiki:
How do I become a member?
Introduce yourself in person or on the mailing list or at a meeting
Pay some dues or do some work like cleaning, etc
Create a wiki user page or email some contact info to info(a)sudoroom.org
Wait a short while
Poof! You're a member!
On 2014-07-22 16:09, niki wrote:
>
> I am sympathetic to everyone's concerns re: the 2/3 rule.
>
> The reason it was proposed was to prevent any sort of hostile take over
wherein
one or two members block everything and nothing is able to get
done. Jesse cautioned us about this after seeing it happen with other
collectives operating on a 100% consensus model who were eventually forced
to dissolve.
>
> I'd love for us to come up with something that both protects us and
allows
for the most amount of consensus / participation..
>
> As for larger collectives having multiple delegates, I'd be interested
in
exploring thoughts around this - primarily: how membership is determined
by each collective and what level of participation is expected from members
(is just being on a mailing list enough?).
>
> This isn't a judgement in any way, simply a pondering.. does the level
of
commitment to a project and the amount of work put in have any impact
(respecting, of course, that we cannot all equally contribute)?
>
> For instance (and this is purely hypothetical), say a collective has
1,000
members but only 2 ever make contributions to the collectivity while
another collective has 50 members who all contribute a significant amount.
Should the 1,000 member collective have greater representation in matter
requiring a vote?
>
> xo
>
> N
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Julio Rios <julio.rios(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Marc's position too. I mostly wanted to take the position
that a majority vote should be used as a last resort only, rather than as a
rule, which it would eventually become if we start introducing this as a
formal rule (the exception becomes the rule) .... but having different
voting processes for different types of decisions makes more sense.
>>
>> Also, I don't know if this is already the process, but as a way to move
through tough situations, we could consider that at least one other member
has to express support for a block in order to validate it... The 2/3 rule
is sounding worse the more I think about it: you could have 3 members
expressly against a proposal and still approve it. That may not be
sustainable long term.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:31 AM, <hol(a)gaskill.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> just to clarify - i think we should definitely pay jesse without
hassle
or haggle, just procedure :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2014-07-22 10:19, hol(a)gaskill.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> i personally wouldn't block this, but i think if we move toward a 2/3
majority, the larger collectives should get additional delegates.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> also - has jesse provided an invoice for his work so far? seems like
we should see the invoice before agreeing to pay, as a matter of
professional services protocol and recordkeeping.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2014-07-22 05:12, Marc Juul wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Jenny Ryan
<tunabananas(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Jenny!
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am blocking this one. We can implement different voting models for
specific types of decisions similar to what sudo has. Revoking consensus
completely is a lazy solution (and yes, this suggestion is equivalent to
revoking consensus as the decision-making process).
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> marc/juul
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
3700
days inactive
3703
days old
17 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
hol＠gaskill.com -
Jenny Ryan -
Jeremy Entwistle -
Julio Rios -
Marc Juul -
Matthew Senate -
niki -
Patrik D'haeseleer