[sudoroom] [IMPORTANT] Interim Governance Structure + Meeting Change in July

[Marina Kukso]

hi everyone!

i know this is too late to be as useful as it could be, but i've added to
the wiki a set of possible questions that governance/decision-making
structures should strive to answer:

Who is a voting member?

Who can bring a proposal/how do proposals get brought?

How do proposals get debated/edited/discussed?

Who votes on proposals (related: synchronous or asynchronous voting)?

What amount of agreement is necessary for a proposal to pass (unanimity,
majority, etc.) (related: different amounts of agreement necessary for
different kinds of proposals)?


i also wrote up just a few brief alternate drafts and left a draft template
open for others to work on and modify.

everything is here! http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Sudo_room/research

thanks again to everyone else for all of their work on the drafts and
discussions - i hope to see you all for more tomorrow!

marina

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Eddan Katz <eddan at oaklandlocal.com> wrote:

>  Dear Sudo ladies, gentlemen, and beyond:
>
> Following up on the call for public comments of the Interim Governance
> Structure, I respectfully submit four suggestions to the discussion -
> about: (1) The Senate; (2) Originary Triumvirate; (3) Deliberative
> Do-ocracy; and (4) Sudo-nymous Etherpad -  sketched out in further detail
> below. I've noted where I've made changes on wiki pages and included
> reference to existing Sudo Room text (where possible), on issues already
> discussed. As always - constructive feedback is most welcomed, including on
> our sudo-nymous etherpad.
>
> -Eddan
> [self-appointed exchequer]
>
>
> *>
> The Senate*
> I propose that we call the decision-making body referenced in note A - the
> "Senate" - to be named in honor of our founding wiki-sudo-master. We all
> know that Matt is too modest to suggest this himself, so I would like to
> make a motion to call it that, subject to whatever rules of order to which
> we adhere. In the meantime, I have taken the liberty of changing all
> references to the term 'Council' on the Governance Structure wiki page to
> the term 'Senate'. *See* **
> http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Sudo_room/Governance_Structure<http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Sudo_room/Governance_Structure>
> .
>
> >
> *Originary Triumvirate*
> Rather than being constituted of the entire Sudo Room body (whatever that
> means), the initiation of a project, activity, or decision process should
> begin its formality with a minimum of three Sudo Agents. Other projects and
> activities are of course not precluded from taking place within the
> boundaries of space and time in which Sudo Room emerges, but the formal
> Senate process begins at this originary moment, at this meeting of three
> collaborative minds.
> I've copied and paste this message at the discussion page at
> http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Talk:Sudo_room/Governance_Structure.
>
> >
> *Deliberative Do-ocracy*
> Originary triumvirates are bound to faithfully pursue of their work
> according to a provision that embodies Sudo Room. This provision could be
> agreed upon in any one of the approaches outlined on the wiki (
> http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Sudo_room/methodology), though the most
> appropriate method for this decision would seem to me to be unanimity.
> I submit the following draft for discussion of such a potential provision
> below. I tried to come up with something 10 words or less that attempts to
> boil down our collective inputs on the methodology page, as well as the
> discussions: (1) [re: separation of politics and hackerspace?]
> (http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/sudoroom/2012-May/thread.html#216);
> and (2) [re: Join] (
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/sudoroom/2012-June/thread.html#370
> ):
>
> *Doing stuff together to make our community openly accessible.*
>
> To hopefully facilitate constructive comments on this proposed text, I
> suggest that it be considered according to its three constitutive parts -
> Doing stuff together // to make our community // openly accessible.
> *
> >
> Anon. Sudo Pad*
>
> As is already customary in Sudo Room, I propose we concretize our practice
> of providing a space that enables the capacity for sudo-(an)onymous
> criticism and commentary. This tool should ensure that constructive input
> from the community can be shared without fear of retribution. So far, we've
> been using the sudo-nymous etherpad at https://pad.riseup.net/p/sudoroom.
>
>
>
>
> On 6/28/12 11:30 PM, Matthew Senate wrote:
>
> Howdy all,
>
> Next Weds is July 4th, doesn't seem like a good time to meet (especially
> if you want to come to my BBQ at 359 bellevue at 2pm ;). Also, Jenny found
> out that Mondays evenings are available in the new space's "classroom"
> (already reserved for us). How about we try for Monday the 9th? If this
> doesn't work, we can always fall into Weds July 11th.
>
> You may have seen in the minutes that the folks who made it to the meeting
> this week put some thought and work into coming up with a way to move
> forward on decision-making, on governance structure, in a form such as
> By-Laws for at least the beginning of our little group. The basic premise
> is to start with a draft, as Victoria has graciously provided and started
> to workshop already with folks at the meeting (see below).
>
> We will be reviewing, changing, and drafting this proposed structure
> (which isn't ready yet) until our next meeting on MONDAY JUNE 9TH, when
> we'll have a vote for this interim solution. We will also have a vote
> online starting at the end of that meeting (when minutes are available) for
> everyone who couldn't make it, which will terminate the following SUNDAY
> JULY 15TH. The goal is to strive for consensus, but we did create a minimum
> standard for approving such a structure: at least 2/3 of those present at
> meeting AND at least 1/2 of online vote.
>
> Editable Draft is here (and a copy is below):
> http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Sudo_room/Governance_Structure
> Discuss here:
> http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/Talk:Sudo_room/Governance_Structure
>
> // Matt
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudoroom mailing listsudoroom at lists.hackerspaces.orghttp://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/sudoroom
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudoroom mailing list
> sudoroom at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/sudoroom
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/sudoroom/attachments/20120708/62fce116/attachment.html>