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

[niki]

I am sympathetic to everyone's concerns re: the 2/3 rule.

The reason it was proposed was to prevent any sort of hostile take over
wherein one or two members block everything and nothing is able to get
done. Jesse cautioned us about this after seeing it happen with other
collectives operating on a 100% consensus model who were eventually forced
to dissolve.

I'd love for us to come up with something that both protects us and allows
for the most amount of consensus / participation..

As for larger collectives having multiple delegates, I'd be interested in
exploring thoughts around this - primarily: how membership is determined by
each collective and what level of participation is expected from members
(is just being on a mailing list enough?).

This isn't a judgement in any way, simply a pondering.. does the level of
commitment to a project and the amount of work put in have any impact
(respecting, of course, that we cannot all equally contribute)?

For instance (and this is purely hypothetical), say a collective has 1,000
members but only 2 ever make contributions to the collectivity while
another collective has 50 members who all contribute a significant amount.
Should the 1,000 member collective have greater representation in matter
requiring a vote?

xo

N


On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Julio Rios <julio.rios at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140722/613c9820/attachment.html>