1,035
edits
Governance: Difference between revisions
→Voting
(→Voting) |
|||
| Line 253: | 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. | ||