[sudoroom] Draft decision model: let's figure it out!

[rachel lyra hospodar]

Hey friends,

This is all super exciting!  I am sorry I had to miss last meeting, it
sounds like some awesome stuff happened.  I have spent some time reading
notes and checking out what is on the wiki, and I have taken the liberty
of making some edits.  Just trying to put some info together and tease
out some next steps, but I am open to feedback rejection etc on my changes.

http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Sudo_room/Governance_Structure

I'm going to keep playing around for a little bit.  I am grateful to the
group for the opportunity to facilitate the meeting last time.  It's
interesting how different it is with every group.  I am still learning a
lot about how to do this kind of thing and it is great to be able to
practice.  Overall I felt like the style of facilitation I am used to
was too formal for the Sudoroom and am curious to see what evolves for
this group.

Also the event I was working on First Friday has been postponed so I am
hoping to participate that evening!

<3
R.

On 6/29/2012 10:49 AM, Eddan Katz wrote:
> Thank you again Victoria for starting us off with this succinct text.
> 
> 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 - 
> 
> (1) overall & big picture comments; 
> (2) paragraph and/or issue level comments; and 
> (3) word choice and meme level comments
> 
> 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)
> 
> 
> Big Picture Comments:
> 
> So in terms of overall comments, it seems to me worthwhile to focus some
> of our deliberation on Note A below:
> [The "Council" could be comprised of elected representatives (or
> volunteers, or super-volunteers). TBD.]
> 
> 1. From my perspective, /who/ makes the decision can be more significant
> than /how/ the decision is made. Some initial questions that come to
> mind -- 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Victoria Bogdan wrote:
> 
>> Hi Sudos,
>>
>> 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 *membership, governance*, *bylaws, *and many
>> more things.
>>
>> After our consensus talks over the past few weeks I figured, what the
>> heck, let me put a *draft *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?
>>
>> And please note: there is a burdgeoning discussion on the Sudo Wiki
>> about how other hackerspaces run their business here
>> <http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Sudo_room/research>.
>>
>> Ok, so how's this for a starting simple draft....
>> Based on "Consensus Decision Making w/ Consensus Blocking
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Consensus_decision-making_with_consensus_blocking>"
>> , the short of it would be:
>>
>> *Premise:* A decision needs to be made.
>> *Step 1:* Discuss at large in the group (with a time limit, and/or
>> feedback can be gathered online instead of taking in-person meeting time)
>> *Step 2:* A Council takes this "raw material" and generates a proposal
>> *Step 3:* 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.
>> *End Result:* A decision is made
>>
>> *Note A: *The "Council" could be comprised of elected representatives
>> (or volunteers, or super-volunteers). TBD.
>> *Note 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://victoriabogdan.com>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudoroom mailing list
>> sudoroom at lists.hackerspaces.org <mailto:sudoroom at lists.hackerspaces.org>
>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/sudoroom
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sudoroom mailing list
> sudoroom at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/sudoroom