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

[Julio Rios]

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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.sudoroom.orghttps://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing listsudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.orghttps://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/20140722/7b267418/attachment.html>