<div>Thank you again Victoria for starting us off with this succinct text.</div><div><br></div><div>As I had mentioned in our smaller group in the Sudo Grotto, I think it would be useful to set time periods for types of editing and commenting to maintain focus and momentum. This can also be useful in preventing the misuse of the discussion period as a method of consensus blocking. I had suggested three stages - </div><div><br></div><div>(1) overall & big picture comments; </div><div>(2) paragraph and/or issue level comments; and </div><div>(3) word choice and meme level comments</div><div><br></div><div>The time periods for each should be flexible, as reflected in the friendly amendment in the minutes, but most significantly - big picture comments should be reserved for the beginning of the discussion, imho, and precluded from diverting consensus at the last minute. This differentiation of stages of drafting can also be made to signal to people with casual interest, but not detail level participation in the discussion, to what stage the discussion has progressed. In the Trans-Atlantic Consumer Dialogue (http://www.tacd.org) - the working groups flagged these stages (i.e., brown draft, red draft, blue draft)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Big Picture Comments:</div><div><br></div><div>So in terms of overall comments, it seems to me worthwhile to focus some of our deliberation on Note A below:</div><div>[The "Council" could be comprised of elected representatives (or volunteers, or super-volunteers). TBD.]</div><div><br></div><div>1. From my perspective, <i>who</i> makes the decision can be more significant than <i>how</i> the decision is made. Some initial questions that come to mind -- </div><div><br></div><div>Who makes up this Council? And why them and not others? Are those not participating doing so because of disinterest and/or exclusion? Does this group of people constitute a representation of the whole body, however that is determined?</div><div><br></div><div>2. It is worth considering whether or not there should be checks and balances between the Council and the whole body in terms of decision-making. Perhaps the people on the Council developing an idea or proposal should be separated to some extent from the decision process, in order to avoid undue influence?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
<p style="color: #A0A0A8;">On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Victoria Bogdan wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-style:solid;border-width:1px;margin-left:0px;padding-left:10px;">
<span><div><div>Hi Sudos, <br><br>As we all know, the time is nigh to develop a way to make decisions. And decide we must on these important first steps! :) Afterall, we still need to figure out <b>membership, governance</b>, <b>bylaws, </b>and many more things. <br>
<br>After our consensus talks over the past few weeks I figured, what the heck, let me put a <b>draft </b>set of guidelines out there so that the group has something to respond to. Maybe we can debate this and hack it out on Wednesday?<br>
<br>And please note: there is a burdgeoning discussion on the Sudo Wiki about how other hackerspaces run their business <a href="http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Sudo_room/research" target="_blank">here</a>.<br><br>Ok, so how's this for a starting simple draft....<br>
Based on "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Consensus_decision-making_with_consensus_blocking">Consensus Decision Making w/ Consensus Blocking</a>" , the short of it would be: <br>
<br>
<b>Premise:</b> A decision needs to be made. <br>
<b>Step 1:</b> Discuss at large
in the group (with a time limit, and/or feedback can be gathered online
instead of taking in-person meeting time)<br>
<b>Step 2:</b> A Council takes this "raw material" and generates a proposal <br>
<b>Step 3:</b> The Council puts the proposal to the group for amendments & voting. We can do majority vote or total consensus. If the vote is a "no", the Council goes back and drafts another proposal.<br>
<b>End Result:</b> A decision is made<br>
<br><b>Note A: </b>The "Council" could be comprised of elected representatives (or volunteers, or super-volunteers). TBD.<br><b>Note B: </b>I'm seeing that the tool of "blocking" can be used in consensus voting, but some groups think of it more as a nuclear option (hence the opportunity to offer amendments and give feedback). This is something else for us to figure out. <br>
<br><br><br><a href="http://victoriabogdan.com" target="_blank"></a><br><br>
</div><div><div>_______________________________________________</div><div>sudoroom mailing list</div><div><a href="mailto:sudoroom@lists.hackerspaces.org">sudoroom@lists.hackerspaces.org</a></div><div><a href="http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/sudoroom">http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/sudoroom</a></div></div></div></span>
</blockquote>
<div>
<br>
</div>