zan nen
Full Member
MissileDog/Shame Trolly !!!1!
Posts: 147
|
Post by zan nen on May 9, 2019 16:20:33 GMT
I will clarify in the OP. This agenda item only concerns "the process by which this committee will pass resolutions and make decisions." Once we have that in place, it's possible 1.3 will have a recommendation to set up a sub-committee to look at the site-wide decision-making process. Alternately we could decide to put that question to this committee as a whole, but first I think we need to establish how this committee will make decisions before we try to decide anything else. I submit this proposal for a decision making process:  Discuss. I'll make a formal motion to adopt the chart above as our decision making process. I'll also include in that proposal a quorum of 10, and a 24 hour poll time. This motion will pass using straight consensus, 10 quorum, 24 hour poll time. This motion has been made and seconded, a straw poll shows widespread support, and chatter regarding it has died out. It's time to "Call the Question". To get the ball rolling, I'm posting this poll to "Call the Question". However, it really isn't correct for a peep who made or seconded a motion to actually make that call. As our facilitator resigned, I'm going to add this further requirement: That somebody (who isn't MrWookie or myself) step up and agree to at least facilitate this particular vote over the next 24 hours. This probably wouldn't entail any significant work, it could be as easy as saying "yeah, the vote is over, this is what won". And... after someone (hopefully) has stepped up, any member of the governance committee may object to that facilitator within the next 24 hours after that. If nobody steps up to facilitate, or if any committee member raises an objection to that facilitator, then this vote is null and void. |
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 9, 2019 16:48:19 GMT
Duuuuudeeeee.... you are really complicated!
I fascilitate that one. It is basically about the chart above that greg proposed. It makes in my POV totally sense for basically any stuff we are going to do. Tx again to greg. And since I want this stuff move forward I volunteer here.
|
|
zan nen
Full Member
MissileDog/Shame Trolly !!!1!
Posts: 147
|
Post by zan nen on May 9, 2019 17:06:16 GMT
Duuuuudeeeee.... you are really complicated! I fascilitate that one. It is basically about the chart above that greg proposed. It makes in my POV totally sense for basically any stuff we are going to do. Tx again to greg. And since I want this stuff move forward I volunteer here. TYVM. This is exactly the kinda DIY spirit that we could really use around here! Also, I copied, but somehow neglected to paste, the second for this motion (below)... |
|
|
|
Post by Ezeem, the Second Thirsty on May 9, 2019 18:53:49 GMT
I'd prefer a 48 hour voting time because I use our forums a lot and I often don't see thinks until more than a day after they happen.
|
|
zan nen
Full Member
MissileDog/Shame Trolly !!!1!
Posts: 147
|
Post by zan nen on May 9, 2019 19:36:43 GMT
I'd prefer a 48 hour voting time because I use our forums a lot and I often don't see thinks until more than a day after they happen. To clarify, I suggested 24 hours in the spirit of a minimum. Also, as a reminder to all, this motion only regards our internal process here in the governance committee. The minimum poll time for, say for site-wide votes, has yet to be discussed or determined. I left the poll in this thread open for (what I think, depending on time zones) 49-52 hours, primarily to give time for a facilitator to volunteer, and to allow time for any objections. As far as I'm concerned, if our facilitator feels like leaving this poll open for voting that entire time, that's ok by me. That would be a call for lapka to make, of course. As for the motion itself... I'm not tied onto 24 hours. To explain: My sense of the committee has been a certain frustration with not moving fast enough, and that's the reason why I proposed the 24 hour figure. Let's hear from other members of this committee. If there seems to be a preponderance of calls for 48 hours, or another number, *and* if our facilitator is amenable to "friendly amendments", I'd also be agreeable. |
|
|
|
Post by Louis Cyphre on May 9, 2019 19:44:05 GMT
I abstained. I have reservations about the consensus process but not enough for a no or even blocking vote. I am willing to have my mind changed by seeing it in action.
|
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 9, 2019 19:46:59 GMT
As far as I understood the OP here: This 24 hours are only for this poll. Basically his whole second white field is only for this voting. Because otherwise "10 quorum and consensus" makes no sense. It would be contradiction in itself to the voting proposal. Zan tried with this short time and very low quorum to move things forward. We can, and for sure will, have at least 48 hours for anything really important. The thing is that I am also not every day here.  And for fun you can guess how many google hits the word combo "straight consensus" has.
He includes the stuff in the second field in the proposal.
No.... even more confusing. He includes 24 hours and a quorum of 10 in the proposal.
And just for this voting there is 24 hours, quorum of 10 and consensus.
|
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 9, 2019 19:58:51 GMT
@ zan nen
Do you agree in changing in your proposal 24 hours into "reasonable" poll time? edit: I conclude from the post below that zan is OK with "reasonable". So I am fine with that. I hope SA is too?
I'd prefer a 48 hour voting time because I use our forums a lot and I often don't see thinks until more than a day after they happen. To clarify, I suggested 24 hours in the spirit of a minimum. Also, as a reminder to all, this motion only regards our internal process here in the governance committee. The minimum poll time for, say for site-wide votes, has yet to be discussed or determined. I left the poll in this thread open for (what I think, depending on time zones) 49-52 hours, primarily to give time for a facilitator to volunteer, and to allow time for any objections. As far as I'm concerned, if our facilitator feels like leaving this poll open for voting that entire time, that's ok by me. That would be a call for lapka to make, of course. As for the motion itself... I'm not tied onto 24 hours. To explain: My sense of the committee has been a certain frustration with not moving fast enough, and that's the reason why I proposed the 24 hour figure. Let's hear from other members of this committee. If there seems to be a preponderance of calls for 48 hours, or another number, *and* if our facilitator is amenable to "friendly amendments", I'd also be agreeable. |
|
zan nen
Full Member
MissileDog/Shame Trolly !!!1!
Posts: 147
|
Post by zan nen on May 9, 2019 20:34:44 GMT
@ zan nen
Do you agree in changing in your proposal 24 hours into "reasonable" poll time? edit: I conclude from the post below that zan is OK with "reasonable". So I am fine with that. I hope SA is too? If we are discussing only the ratification of this motion, sure I'm fine with that. If we are talking about the content of the motion itself... well that's a somewhat different thingee. Several peeps have already voted on the original wording. ETA a correction: The fastest way for us to do this change, if that's what folks want to do, would be to pass this motion in 24 hours, then for me, or preferably someone else, to then propose something like "amending from '24' to 'minimum 48' hours", and then pass that second motion, under the rules of the first motion, in 24 hours. |
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 9, 2019 21:18:56 GMT
Duuude..... I am kinda speechless. And I am really not often that. Do you really think that anyone of those who voted is against "reasonable" as wording? Why the heck do you want to waste your, my and everyone elses time? I would really like to understand, why are you so set on the strat that is obviously failing? So..... I have for now several alternatives: - block that - put down the facilitatator role |
|
zan nen
Full Member
MissileDog/Shame Trolly !!!1!
Posts: 147
|
Post by zan nen on May 9, 2019 22:15:46 GMT
... why are you so set on the strat that is obviously failing?... I'm not running a "strat", whatever you mean by that. I voted 'yes', and I object to the word "reasonable" here. To me this implies that any facilitator could set the open poll time unilatally, and at their whim. More important than that is that there is a motion being voted upon. A facilitator can"t unilatally, and at their whim, change the wording of a motion like that. Do what you need to do. But, maybe in the future, instead of making numerous posts whining that nothing is happening... instead you could try actually participating in the process. You had a week to raise your concerns regarding poll open time... why did you wait until we were already voting? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2019 2:01:59 GMT
Catching up. Voted yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrWookie on May 10, 2019 2:19:36 GMT
I abstained. I have reservations about the consensus process but not enough for a no or even blocking vote. I am willing to have my mind changed by seeing it in action. I am encouraged by the consensus process so far, and you have been an exemplary participant. I agree it will be an interesting test when people feel passionately enough to start wanting to block, but up to now we have been successful at allaying concerns, at least those outside of the slow process. But I don't think we are far behind where we would be with an ill formed majority process that would require a polling time. We are on the brink of more concrete discussions. |
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 10, 2019 5:55:59 GMT
I have to put down my role as a facilitator here, since I am obviously not fit for that task.
|
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 10, 2019 6:12:23 GMT
... why are you so set on the strat that is obviously failing?... I'm not running a "strat", whatever you mean by that. I voted 'yes', and I object to the word "reasonable" here. To me this implies that any facilitator could set the open poll time unilatally, and at their whim. More important than that is that there is a motion being voted upon. A facilitator can"t unilatally, and at their whim, change the wording of a motion like that. Do what you need to do. But, maybe in the future, instead of making numerous posts whining that nothing is happening... instead you could try actually participating in the process. You had a week to raise your concerns regarding poll open time... why did you wait until we were already voting?Because I think that the process that you trying to set-up is inefficient, time-consuming and makes no sense. Because I am frustrated by you and what you are doing and I am so not gonna waste my time on that.
You try to set-up very defined, very structured rules for things that is possible to regulate easier and faster by common sense. I mean... you object the word "reasonable" not because you really object the reasonable setting for poll time, but because you find it so completely unacceptable that I am going to change the wording in the midst of it. You try to set-up rules, where there is nothing there. That doesn't work like that.
I won't be participating in anything that I perceive as useless and frustrating.
If you want to apply your super structured process creation, where everything is super defined and so, join us in the discussion of bylaws of whatever we will become. That is the point where I have a feeling that your approach could become useful.
|
|
|
|
Post by SenorKeeed on May 10, 2019 15:54:01 GMT
voted yes
|
|
|
|
Post by kre8tive on May 10, 2019 17:46:29 GMT
YES
Voted in poll, posting vote in thread as well for transparency.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrWookie on May 10, 2019 18:30:23 GMT
Looks like we have met quorum, ya?
|
|
|
|
Post by lapka on May 10, 2019 18:53:46 GMT
I absolutely support anything productive you can create. Like I said I won't participate in this procedural nonsense. But I am all for doing something.
Don't stop yourself by a game rule which you yourself put in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrWookie on May 11, 2019 15:43:56 GMT
This has passed. Congrats everyone.
|
|
