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

Tue Jul 22 16:13:29 PDT 2014

On 07/20/2014 02:10 AM, Matthew Senate wrote:
> 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%])?

Yes! Here are some things that may need to happen and could be
threatened by a person who doesn't want it to happen, which would then
need a majority vote:

* pay rent, utilities, and other liabilities to the space
* submit legal documentation (permits, etc)
* suspensions and bans (if banned from a collective)

I think of the omni collective as those who ensure the space may be used
by the collectives and prevent conflicts when there's a disagreement
between them. I don't think of it as something that approves of
everything we do or resolves individual's conflicts.

Otherwise, I think we should be using consensus. It's not about asking
for approval to do something, its about making decisions that improve
the space for everybody. I don't want to tell anybody they can't do
anything until approved by everybody, but rather say they can do
everything but these things. Some of these things might be:

* changing the structure of the building
* restricting access to the space by changing access control
* painting common areas or removing flooring
* using the common areas when something has been scheduled

I still think we should define what it means to be a collective at the
omni. And some of that definition should require the collectives to have
a code of conduct. I most definitely agree we should be very delicate
about how we discuss and decide resolutions for these issues, especially
if we're asking everybody to agree to them and feel empowered to enforce
the decisions.

> 
> 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
> 

In my experience, when you have the option to wait for the majority
vote, that's what happens. We should enable ourselves to do things that
secure the space for all the collective by using a majority vote for
some things, but use consensus when we're creating rules that will
affect everybody. The bigger the majority, the more it demonstrates our
confidence in the decision.

I feel how we make decisions and how those decisions are enforced is
what makes this different from the rest of the world. I feel it's why
there's so much beauty in it!

> 
> 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
>>
> 