|
|
Post by MrWookie on May 11, 2019 15:49:36 GMT
Next on our agenda is settling on our scope.
Do we want to tackle essential functions like posting guidelines and ownership as subcommittees of this committee, or should we spin off novel committees with new membership?
We pretty much have to put forth standards by which the community will adopt proposals of this and future committees, including tech.
Is there anything else people would propose being in our scope, or out of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by MrWookie on May 11, 2019 16:00:25 GMT
I do think it's in our scope to put forth standards for what will constitute voting membership.
An open question is if we want to have a standing committee as a gatekeeper to future committees that do things like alter forum rules, and then if we want to be that committee. Like, should there be some sort of gatekeeper, or do we just not care if trolls spawn committees and put forth troll proposals because we can just block them with blocking votes?
|
|
zan nen
Full Member
MissileDog/Shame Trolly !!!1!
Posts: 147
|
Post by zan nen on May 11, 2019 16:50:35 GMT
I do think it's in our scope to put forth standards for what will constitute voting membership. An open question is if we want to have a standing committee as a gatekeeper to future committees that do things like alter forum rules, and then if we want to be that committee. Like, should there be some sort of gatekeeper, or do we just not care if trolls spawn committees and put forth troll proposals because we can just block them with blocking votes? IMO we should care very much. I'm not ready to make a formal motion at this time. But what I'm thinking off is something like this... 1. We first generate a proposal for a site wide initiative defining how site wide initiatives work. 2. If that passes site wide, we then under those rules either, (2A) make a site wide proposal to establish our list of standing or temporary committees, and then this committee goes out of business, or (2B) we establish our list of standing or temporary sub-committees to this committee, and make a site wide proposal that this committee become a standing committee. FWIW: I've personally flip-flopped between 2A and 2B in these threads, and right now I'm ambivalent. As for #1 above, this is my off-the-cuff idea... a) We propose to establish a standing "Site Wide Initiative Committee" under the root. This committee would be open to all voting members at any time, but they would need to explicitly announce that they are joining. On the flip side, members of this SWIC can announce they are quitting, and as a courtesy should do so if they aren't going to be able to participate. Also, perhaps members that haven't participated for a defined amount of time should be purged... they can always rejoin in they wish. b) Any member of the SWIC can propose a potential site wide initiative. The SWIC would then use a consensus process to possibly approve any proposed site wide initiative for a site wide ratification vote. c) If approved by the SWIC, the initiative would then be voted on by the whole site wide voting membership. This would be a simple 50%+1 vote (or perhaps a simple super-majority vote)... and not use a consensus process. If it passes this site wide ratification, the initiative would then go into effect. |
|
zan nen
Full Member
MissileDog/Shame Trolly !!!1!
Posts: 147
|
Post by zan nen on May 12, 2019 22:32:04 GMT
To hopefully get this discussion going, I'm going to suggest we get a straw-poll up regarding the following concerns. I'll volunteer to facilitate a discussion of these three concerns, in a separate thread, if I get any encouragement here ITT. #1. (yes/no/it's complicated) This committee should only be considering a "process of delegation", in other words a site-wide decision making process functionally equivalent to what has been briefly been discussed ITT, and should let other groups address issues of ownership/etc/etc #2. (yes/no/it's complicated) This committee should propose to become a standing committee. #3. (yes/no/it's complicated) This committee should propose some kind of standing screening committee for site wide initiatives. Discussion... #1. The following is from our committee's mandate from the general voting membership... Delegation: This forum is facing many important looming questions, such as determinations of ownership, establishment of posting standards, establishment of voting membership standards, determining how funding is obtained and revenue is allocated, appointing moderators, etc. It is unwieldy and disorderly for the whole community to tackle all of those issues at once, so it is best to delegate them. The purpose of this committee is to establish a process for delegation which will then be voted on and hopefully adopted by the community... IMO everything before the phrase "The purpose" (bold above) is a "Whereas" clause. Whereas clauses spell out the motivations of amotion, but they aren't considered anything more than commentary. In this case, and assuming it is indeed a whereas clause, this means it is not this committee's mandate to tackle the list of "looming questions". Instead we could focus on coming up with that site wide decision making process. OTOH, just because that tackling that list of "looming questions" might not be in our mandate, doesn't mean our committee can't come up with our own recommendations y/o proposals regarding them. #2 The following is also from our committee's mandate from the general voting membership... Let's get a discussion going on this clear part of our mandate. For those suggesting we become a standing committee, please sketch out (a) why, and (b) some sketch of what this standing committee would actually be doing. #3 Is a screening committee the way we want to go? Or not? Let's start chatting about this now too. |
|
|
|
Post by catfacemeowmers on May 13, 2019 16:01:29 GMT
Zan I think that everything you're saying makes sense, but I worry that if we start having too many committees/subcommittees that we will run into two related issues: we will run out of people with the passion and the ability to take part in those committees, and as a result there will be a lot of the same faces on each committee. I'm brainstorming this as I type, so don't take this as an indication that I don't support your plan, but I worry about overburdening members and also about unintentionally concentrating power if there are, say, 10 people who are the only ones who are signing up to do the stuff. Do you have any thoughts on that?
|
|
zan nen
Full Member
MissileDog/Shame Trolly !!!1!
Posts: 147
|
Post by zan nen on May 13, 2019 16:15:03 GMT
Zan I think that everything you're saying makes sense, but I worry that if we start having too many committees/subcommittees that we will run into two related issues: we will run out of people with the passion and the ability to take part in those committees, and as a result there will be a lot of the same faces on each committee. I'm brainstorming this as I type, so don't take this as an indication that I don't support your plan, but I worry about overburdening members and also about unintentionally concentrating power if there are, say, 10 people who are the only ones who are signing up to do the stuff. Do you have any thoughts on that? I'm not proposing any new committees at this time. The problem we are having right now is lack of participation on this *one* perhaps temporary committee. Long term, there will be a need for several committees, of course. If it turns out that basically nobody wants to serve on any of them, well then we'll need to accept a Mason/Mat type of dictatorship here, or we'll need to throw in the towel. Long term, assuming we don't become a dictatorship, it would behoove us to be proactive and continually be recruiting new faces to committee work. Things like offering and encouraging peeps to train and act as facilitators, perhaps mods, etc/etc. That's a conversation ongoing in the agenda item 1.5 thread. ETA: do you have any opinions on the three questions I just asked? Reminder: folks don't have to be on the committee to chime in with their opinions here. |
|
|
|
Post by MrWookie on May 14, 2019 15:33:16 GMT
To hopefully get this discussion going, I'm going to suggest we get a straw-poll up regarding the following concerns. I'll volunteer to facilitate a discussion of these three concerns, in a separate thread, if I get any encouragement here ITT. #1. (yes/no/it's complicated) This committee should only be considering a "process of delegation", in other words a site-wide decision making process functionally equivalent to what has been briefly been discussed ITT, and should let other groups address issues of ownership/etc/etc #2. (yes/no/it's complicated) This committee should propose to become a standing committee. #3. (yes/no/it's complicated) This committee should propose some kind of standing screening committee for site wide initiatives. Discussion... #1. The following is from our committee's mandate from the general voting membership... Delegation: This forum is facing many important looming questions, such as determinations of ownership, establishment of posting standards, establishment of voting membership standards, determining how funding is obtained and revenue is allocated, appointing moderators, etc. It is unwieldy and disorderly for the whole community to tackle all of those issues at once, so it is best to delegate them. The purpose of this committee is to establish a process for delegation which will then be voted on and hopefully adopted by the community... IMO everything before the phrase "The purpose" (bold above) is a "Whereas" clause. Whereas clauses spell out the motivations of amotion, but they aren't considered anything more than commentary. In this case, and assuming it is indeed a whereas clause, this means it is not this committee's mandate to tackle the list of "looming questions". Instead we could focus on coming up with that site wide decision making process. OTOH, just because that tackling that list of "looming questions" might not be in our mandate, doesn't mean our committee can't come up with our own recommendations y/o proposals regarding them. #2 The following is also from our committee's mandate from the general voting membership... Let's get a discussion going on this clear part of our mandate. For those suggesting we become a standing committee, please sketch out (a) why, and (b) some sketch of what this standing committee would actually be doing. #3 Is a screening committee the way we want to go? Or not? Let's start chatting about this now too. Sorry, yeah I think we should get a straw poll up. That can allow us to get some feedback when people aren't posting. |
|
zan nen
Full Member
MissileDog/Shame Trolly !!!1!
Posts: 147
|
Post by zan nen on May 14, 2019 16:26:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by catfacemeowmers on May 14, 2019 19:15:11 GMT
To hopefully get this discussion going, I'm going to suggest we get a straw-poll up regarding the following concerns. I'll volunteer to facilitate a discussion of these three concerns, in a separate thread, if I get any encouragement here ITT. #1. (yes/no/it's complicated) This committee should only be considering a "process of delegation", in other words a site-wide decision making process functionally equivalent to what has been briefly been discussed ITT, and should let other groups address issues of ownership/etc/etc #2. (yes/no/it's complicated) This committee should propose to become a standing committee. #3. (yes/no/it's complicated) This committee should propose some kind of standing screening committee for site wide initiatives. #1 - I think that the governance committee should be responsible for the issue of ownership to whatever extent committees are responsible for those kind of decisions. So, if that means researching the topic and presenting a few options to the larger membership for a vote, fine. If that means making a decision requiring a consensus of committee members, fine. If it means a supermajority or simple majority, fine. I think the governance committee likely already has most of the people who are interested in taking on that kind of responsibility, and setting up a separate group to address ownership is not likely to be fruitful at this point. #2 - This committee should certainly be a standing committee imo, although I'd be in favor of some kind of periodic opportunities to change or update membership in the committee. There are always going to be issues regarding site governance, and there's no reason to go through a process of re-selecting a governance committee every time. #3 - I don't see a real reason to do that at this stage, but I agree it's a good idea for the future. Basically, there are a few major issues that need to be taken care of before we get into more niche site wide initiatives, and I think the currently assembled committees are best suited to tackle those issues. We need to figure out ownership, mods, and the technical aspects of a new site ASAP. This committee can handle ownership and mod decisions, and the tech committee can handle technical aspects. When we get established and have a permanent home, there may be new issues such as creating new forums, doing forum specific mods, new rules, issues regarding revenue, etc. - at that point it would make sense to have a separate committee for site wide initiatives, and we may also have some additional people who are willing to take on that responsibility. |
|
|
|
Post by whosnext on May 14, 2019 20:03:05 GMT
I have read the OP twice and am still confused about question #1. Can I ask a specific question that may elucidate the issue for me (and perhaps others)?
Am I supposed to vote "Yes" or "No" to Question #1 if I favor the presently-formed Governance Committee to create, from its own membership (in whole or in subsets), sub-committees tasked with discussing and developing proposals which would then be voted upon by the entire Governance Committee (and, if passed by the committee, put to a vote of the entire forum membership) in the following areas:
- ownership/admin
- posting rules
- moderation/moderators (this could be merged with "posting rules")
- etc.
Thank you.
|
|
zan nen
Full Member
MissileDog/Shame Trolly !!!1!
Posts: 147
|
Post by zan nen on May 14, 2019 22:59:52 GMT
I have read the OP twice and am still confused about question #1. Can I ask a specific question that may elucidate the issue for me (and perhaps others)? Am I supposed to vote "Yes" or "No" to Question #1 if I favor the presently-formed Governance Committee to create, from its own membership (in whole or in subsets), sub-committees tasked with discussing and developing proposals which would then be voted upon by the entire Governance Committee (and, if passed by the committee, put to a vote of the entire forum membership) in the following areas: - ownership/admin - posting rules - moderation/moderators (this could be merged with "posting rules") - etc. Thank you. Pretty much yes. The way I see it, and assuming the GovComm isn't to be a standing committee, is... 1. The GovComm could simply propose site-wide initiative rules. Assuming they were ratified, any voting member, including a member of any unofficial caucus, could then use those site-wide initiative rules to propose, say, a final legal ownership structure. If ratified by the general voting membership, it would go into effect. 2. The GovComm could again, simply propose site-wide initiative rules/etc. Any member/etc could then use those rules to propose formation of a committee to report back regarding ownership/etc. If that committee generates a proposal, it would be submitted to the general voting membership for ratification. The above options 1,2 are a "yes" 3. The GovComm could take up directly the matter of ownership/etc. If a proposal is generated, it would then be submitted for ratification to the general voting membership. 4. The GovComm could spawn off a sub-committee to consider the matter of ownership/etc. If a proposal is generated, it would first be submitted to the whole of the GovComm for approval. If approved by the GovComm it would then be submitted for ratification to the general voting membership. The above options 3,4 are a "no". |
|
|
|
Post by superuberbob on May 16, 2019 21:59:45 GMT
I'm a fan of number 1.
I don't have the legalese or intelligence to provide an opinion. My general idea is to try to keep things as simple as one can. Too many subcommittees can lead to essentially running out of competent volunteers.
|
|
zan nen
Full Member
MissileDog/Shame Trolly !!!1!
Posts: 147
|
Post by zan nen on May 17, 2019 13:36:47 GMT
Fellow Unstuckers, and especially members of the Governance Committee, A whole new round of straw poll questions await you in this thread: exiledpolitics.freeforums.net/thread/179/updated-new-item-straw-polls. Democracy is an iterative process, this is the next iteration. Let's get/keep the ball rolling, so to speak. Please, *please*, look over these Qs and make your opinions known. If you participated in the first round of straw poll questions... you really need to participate in this second round of straw poll questions. |
|
