[sudo-discuss] [OMNI] Proposals up for consensus

[Matthew Senate]

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 at 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 at lists.sudoroom.org
> > https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> https://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20140720/2f208ef5/attachment.html>