Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 18:03:12 GMT
Poll Question (This is just a straw poll to get a sense of the mood in the room. This is not a binding vote.) It has been moved and seconded that we close the voting [on matters before the Governance Committee] to committee members only. While this isn't practical to enforce with software, we should only recognize votes from the original 23 committee members. Non-committee voting members are encouraged to post and persuade as they will.- I agree with the proposal
- I think voting should be open to non-Gov Cmte members and they should be allowed to participate in the threads
- I think only Gov Cmte members should be allowed to vote and post in threads
There is no option to allow non-Gov Cmte members to vote but not participate in the threads, or to make the entire forum hidden to all but Gov Cmte members. If you support these or any other variations, please elaborate in the thread. Please vote in the poll NOT in the thread, but you're encouraged to elaborate on the reasoning behind your vote in the thread.
To get us started, I have copied the discussion from the thread where this motion arose below: ...I move that we close the voting to committee members only. While this isn't practical to enforce with software, we should only recognize votes from the original 23 committee members. Non-committee voting members are encouraged to post and persuade as they will. I'll suggest that this is already implied by the online nature here, combined with the very concept of a committee. We can't say something like "all those who showed up here tonight" have vote. I'd also suggest that we've pretty much been doing this already, as the number 23, and the associated list of screen names, have been referenced several times. I'll second if we feel we need to formalize this issue. ETA: my understanding is our charter allows us the option of a simple up/down vote to decide this kinda issue. That would mean we could decide this issue, if we feel the need to, without waiting for the result of agenda item 1.1. I'll suggest that this is already implied by the online nature here, combined with the very concept of a committee. We can't say something like "all those who showed up here tonight" have vote. I'd also suggest that we've pretty much been doing this already, as the number 23, and the associated list of screen names, have been referenced several times. I'll second if we feel we need to formalize this issue. I pretty much agree, but I, for one, like the formalization. I vote yes on wookie's motion to formally limit voting to committee members. I vote yes on wookie's motion to formally limit voting to committee members. I feel this motion fits squarely inside agenda item 1.1, and I wouldn't be surprised if our facilitator moves it to that thread. Also, it is pretty much SOP for a facilitator to open the floor for discussion before calling the vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by kerowo on May 6, 2019 18:07:41 GMT
What is the difference between the first and third options? Ahh, the third item doesn’t have anything to do with voting and should be removed from the poll imho.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 18:14:46 GMT
Thanks for pulling this out gregorio. Agree with kerowo--I think "should we limit voting to GC members only" and "should we limit posting in GC threads to GC members only" are two separate questions. Reading between the lines, I think option 3 is supposed to be "voting for GC members only, and posting for GC members only," which implies #1 is "voting for GC members only, but posting for everyone" but I think they are worth separating and discussing on their own as there are multiple ways to implement this.
For what it's worth, I intend my vote in this poll to represent "voting should be for GC members only, but posting in the GC threads should be open to all forum members"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 18:55:29 GMT
Sorry for confusion. I wanted to keep this simple so I did not include an option that non-Committee members be allowed to vote but not participate in the discussion. I will update the OP to be more precise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2019 18:57:48 GMT
I got where you were going with it--I can't imagine anyone advocating for that particular combination haha.
|
|
zan nen
Full Member
MissileDog/Shame Trolly !!!1!
Posts: 147
|
Post by zan nen on May 7, 2019 3:43:32 GMT
I move that we close the voting to committee members only. While this isn't practical to enforce with software, we should only recognize votes from the original 23 committee members. Non-committee voting members are encouraged to post and persuade as they will. While we still have a decision making process pending, I propose that this motion be adopted with a consensus standard, where people have 48 hrs to agree, place a blocking objection, or to voice their disagreement but stand aside of the consensus. We should need at least 11 agreements for adoption and no blocking objections.
I'll re- second this motion with the adoption proposal (in bold). I'll also suggest to our facilitator that the question be called at this time. I *feel* we have a good framework sketched out. I *feel* we can reach a fairly easy consensus on the above... mainly because it seems those wise enough to not be on our committee don't have any desire to vote in it. Also, it seems that chatter has died out regarding the general decision making process, with a majority in the straw poll currently favoring consensus with a super-majority fallback. I'd *hope* that a motion could be proposed on that issue so as that question could be called quite shortly after this question has been decided. I *think* after these two questions have been decided, we can move forward on the other fronts in a systematic manner. I *know* folks wanna see that kinda progress. |
|
|
|
Post by MrWookie on May 7, 2019 4:51:47 GMT
Who is our dissenter?
|
|
|
|
Post by kerowo on May 7, 2019 14:53:55 GMT
We can’t get 15 votes on the first issue of governance of this site. We’ve lost our first facilitator and I don’t see a slew of volunteers in line behind him. Our patron saint of consensus based rule has posted only a handful of times, few of which have moved things forward.
I think we are setting ourselves up to fail.
I want to hear from the community and build a place where we all want to hang out, but I think we need to re-examine how we get there.
I think we need a leader to move things forward with assistance from a group of people who are aware of the time commitment involved. I would suggest that Cuse is that leader.
I think the first step is to figure out ownership of the site and the creation of the appropriate legal entity to be able to accept donations from users and spend money getting the site running. Once we have a site running we can revisit the rules. Until then we continue as we are; doing the least amount of rule enforcing as possible based on what posts are being reported and a plurality vote among the mods.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ezeem, the Second Thirsty on May 9, 2019 3:20:10 GMT
i think patreon is a good idea. it sucks that they take a large cut of the money but it might get our name out there. whereas if we just venmo'd cuse we'd save some money but, idk i guess it's like paying for advertising on patreon? anyway i'm for it, why not.
|
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 9, 2019 9:16:33 GMT
We can’t get 15 votes on the first issue of governance of this site. We’ve lost our first facilitator and I don’t see a slew of volunteers in line behind him. Our patron saint of consensus based rule has posted only a handful of times, few of which have moved things forward. I think we are setting ourselves up to fail. I want to hear from the community and build a place where we all want to hang out, but I think we need to re-examine how we get there. I think we need a leader to move things forward with assistance from a group of people who are aware of the time commitment involved. I would suggest that Cuse is that leader. I think the first step is to figure out ownership of the site and the creation of the appropriate legal entity to be able to accept donations from users and spend money getting the site running. Once we have a site running we can revisit the rules. Until then we continue as we are; doing the least amount of rule enforcing as possible based on what posts are being reported and a plurality vote among the mods. Yes yes yes. I completely agree with this. Please have a look into "simplified procedure" thread. I had a look into how to create a coop and non-profit. It is really not so complicated. And we totally can adopt the work greg has done so far with his flow sheet.
I mean for now everyone is frustrated with how things are going here. And I believe majority don't want even to read here. At least it is true for me.
|
|
...I move that we close the voting to committee members only. While this isn't practical to enforce with software, we should only recognize votes from the original 23 committee members. Non-committee voting members are encouraged to post and persuade as they will.
I'll suggest that this is already implied by the online nature here, combined with the very concept of a committee. We can't say something like "all those who showed up here tonight" have vote. I'd also suggest that we've pretty much been doing this already, as the number 23, and the associated list of screen names, have been referenced several times. I'll second if we feel we need to formalize this issue.
