1,035
edits
No edit summary |
m (regenerating diagram bc it broke) |
||
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Description=Decisionmaking process at neuromatch.social | |Description=Decisionmaking process at neuromatch.social | ||
|Contributor=Jonny Saunders | |Contributor=Jonny Saunders | ||
|Approval Status= | |Approval Status=Approved | ||
|Completion Status= | |Completion Status=Ongoing | ||
|Loomio Thread= | |Loomio Thread=https://loomio.neuromatch.social/d/N3JMkiod/-proposal-governance | ||
|Date Proposed=2023-01-30 | |Date Proposed=2023-01-30 | ||
|Date Approved= | |Date Approved=2023-02-13 | ||
|Topic=Governance,Proposals,Discussions,Voting | |Topic=Governance,Proposals,Discussions,Voting | ||
}} | }} | ||
Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
// splines="ortho" | // splines="ortho" | ||
// items | // items | ||
// idea[ | // idea[ | ||
Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
''See also: [[Making A Proposal]]'' | ''See also: [[Making A Proposal]]'' | ||
Proposals should be made according to the schema currently in place for a [[Category:Proposal]]. In general this should include: | Proposals should be made according to the schema currently in place for a [[:Category:Proposal]]. In general this should include: | ||
* '''Sponsor''' - If more people than the person posting the thread are involved in the proposal, they should be named | * '''Sponsor''' - If more people than the person posting the thread are involved in the proposal, they should be named | ||
Line 183: | Line 183: | ||
** The [[Mastodon/Financial WG|Financial WG]] should be able to provide guidance on the feasibility of any proposal given the current state of the [[Mastodon/Budget]]. | ** The [[Mastodon/Financial WG|Financial WG]] should be able to provide guidance on the feasibility of any proposal given the current state of the [[Mastodon/Budget]]. | ||
** If a proposal has some variable cost ("How much should we spend on x this month"), that is indication that a proposal needed further discussion, but it is always possible to propose the high-end of a cost range and use less than was proposed. | ** If a proposal has some variable cost ("How much should we spend on x this month"), that is indication that a proposal needed further discussion, but it is always possible to propose the high-end of a cost range and use less than was proposed. | ||
* '''Specific Description''' - The description of what is being proposed, including any existing policies or etc. that will be changed. The content of a proposal is very general, as it is the basic unit of decisionmaking - a proposal can implement a new [[Policies|policy]], [[Bylaws|bylaw]], [[Norms|norm]], or approve some action like merging a [[Mastodon/Hacking|hack]], among others. | * '''Specific Description''' - The description of what is being proposed, including any existing policies or etc. that will be changed. The content of a proposal is very general, as it is the basic unit of decisionmaking - a proposal can implement a new [[Mastodon/Policies|policy]], [[Mastodon/Bylaws|bylaw]], [[Mastodon/Norms|norm]], or approve some action like merging a [[Mastodon/Hacking|hack]], among others. | ||
* '''Links to Context''' - Any links to preceding discussions or relevant examples | * '''Links to Context''' - Any links to preceding discussions or relevant examples | ||
Line 216: | Line 216: | ||
Working groups have '''responsibilities''' and accompanying '''bounded discretion''' to meet those responsibilities. Conversely, in order to exercise the power implied by the discretion of a working group, a member should take some part in the work of the group's responsibilities: if one wants to second guess the work of a working group, a member should either be doing some of that work, or else be willing to describe how that work should be done differently as part of a structured proposal. | Working groups have '''responsibilities''' and accompanying '''bounded discretion''' to meet those responsibilities. Conversely, in order to exercise the power implied by the discretion of a working group, a member should take some part in the work of the group's responsibilities: if one wants to second guess the work of a working group, a member should either be doing some of that work, or else be willing to describe how that work should be done differently as part of a structured proposal. | ||
Working groups should be established by a proposal that defines each of these three components: | |||
* How it decides its membership or decides who gets any sort of privileged access or power | |||
* What specific responsibilities the group has | |||
* What the bounds on its discretionary activity are | |||
=== Membership === | === Membership === | ||
Membership in any working group should be fluid: in most cases, a member needs only volunteer for a working group in order to be considered a part of it. By volunteering to be a part of a working group, a member agrees to undertake some proportion of the WG's responsibilities, depending on the WG's operating practices. | Membership in any working group should be fluid: in most cases, a member needs only volunteer for a working group in order to be considered a part of it. By volunteering to be a part of a working group, a member agrees to undertake some proportion of the WG's responsibilities, depending on the WG's operating practices. | ||
=== Responsibilities === | === Responsibilities === | ||
Line 241: | Line 245: | ||
=== Compensation === | === Compensation === | ||
[[Mastodon/TODO]] - We should compensate working group members. | [[Mastodon/TODO]] - We should compensate working group members. This is left undefined at the time of proposal, but should be revisited later | ||
== Voting == | == Voting == | ||
Line 249: | Line 253: | ||
Neuromatch.social decisions are made with a modified form of consensus for large asynchronous groups. There is no minimum vote required for quorum: all members are encouraged to vote in all decisions, but since it is impossible to define how many members are active, there is no sensible threshold that can be set. | Neuromatch.social decisions are made with a modified form of consensus for large asynchronous groups. There is no minimum vote required for quorum: all members are encouraged to vote in all decisions, but since it is impossible to define how many members are active, there is no sensible threshold that can be set. | ||
Voting in a [[Consensus]] system is not like voting in a majoritarian system: | Voting in a [[Consensus]] system is not like voting in a majoritarian system: | ||
* Members should be able to influence the particular structure of a proposal prior to a vote, rather than deliberate its details in the voting process. One should only "block" a proposal a few times during their tenure in a governance body, and any block should be an indication that the process has failed, rather than the proposal has failed. | * Rather than voting for the thing that would be best for you, you are voting for what is best for the instance. | ||
* Rather than the proposal being the starting point of a decision which then takes effect if a majority approve, the proposal is the endpoint in a process where the membership will have negotiated and discussed the form of the proposal and tried to address all needs beforehand. | |||
* Rather than voting "no," we think in terms of '''"blocking"''' a proposal: decisions should be made with the rough consensus of the whole instance, which is why the thresholds for approval are much lower than 50%. In smaller settings, a proposal can be blocked by a single person. | |||
The purpose for thinking in terms of consensus and blocking rather than majoritarian voting is to prevent a tyranny of the majority that might overlook the needs of marginalized or other groups in a numerical minority. | |||
In order to prevent every decision from devolving into an academic deadlock: | |||
* Members should be able to influence the particular structure of a proposal prior to a vote, rather than deliberate its details in the voting process. One should only "block" a proposal a few times during their tenure in a governance body, and any block should be an indication that the process has failed, rather than the proposal has failed. | |||
* Members that block should - with some exceptions like blocking an action that would be personally harmful to you - participate in the followup process to meet the needs that the OP was trying to meet with their proposal: blocking means you should take on work. | * Members that block should - with some exceptions like blocking an action that would be personally harmful to you - participate in the followup process to meet the needs that the OP was trying to meet with their proposal: blocking means you should take on work. | ||
* Members should resist the urge to micromanage and leave the granularity of decisions to the people that will be doing the work implied by any given proposal. We should cultivate a culture of trust in one another: believe your fellow members know what they're doing, and if you have input, you should be ready to volunteer alongside them. | * Members should resist the urge to micromanage and leave the granularity of decisions to the people that will be doing the work implied by any given proposal. We should cultivate a culture of trust in one another: believe your fellow members know what they're doing, and if you have input, you should be ready to volunteer alongside them. |