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

[Julio Rios]

I'm kind of disinclined to the proportionate representation based on number
of members.  If there's a good reason for this distinction (I'm not sure
there is), I would more likely support proportions to rent or other
contributions as Niki suggested.

Unless I'm missing something, each group is like a committee, so if
organized by consensus on two levels, should, in the normal case, the
entire process is driven consensus anyway. Exceptions based on majority
voting should still have the spirit of consensus,  so I'm not sure giving
more weight to one group vs another makes sense... Or am I being
simplistic?

On Jul 22, 2014 4:24 PM, <hol at gaskill.com> wrote:
>
> from the wiki:
>
> How do I become a member?
> Introduce yourself in person or on the mailing list or at a meeting
> Pay some dues or do some work like cleaning, etc
> Create a wiki user page or email some contact info to info at sudoroom.org
> Wait a short while
> Poof! You're a member!
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2014-07-22 16:09, niki wrote:
>>
>> 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 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20140722/5493ad02/attachment.html>