1,035
edits
Consensus: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(→Discord: new section) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Blocking also typically enjoins the person blocking to help remedy the reason for their block: if a proposal is being made in good faith, we assume that it is meeting some unmet need by the proposer/other members. If someone blocks a proposal, that will mean that it might cause them or the organization harm, but those unmet needs still remain - so it's basically like conflict res at that point. Ofc there are exceptions like not making marginalized ppl do additional labor, etc. | Blocking also typically enjoins the person blocking to help remedy the reason for their block: if a proposal is being made in good faith, we assume that it is meeting some unmet need by the proposer/other members. If someone blocks a proposal, that will mean that it might cause them or the organization harm, but those unmet needs still remain - so it's basically like conflict res at that point. Ofc there are exceptions like not making marginalized ppl do additional labor, etc. | ||
|Link=https://discord.com/channels/1049136631065628772/1049184383220846693/1070541849665736775 | |Link=https://discord.com/channels/1049136631065628772/1049184383220846693/1070541849665736775 | ||
}}{{Message | |||
|Author=sneakers.the.rat | |||
|Avatar=https://cdn.discordapp.com/avatars/305044217393053697/2970b22bd769d0cd0ee1de79be500e85.png?size=1024 | |||
|Date Sent=23-09-26 21:29:58 | |||
|Channel=questions | |||
|Text=Yes! Good question!!!!! Thats one of the basic [[Consensus]] questions - good for me vs. Good for the group. Good for both is ideal ofc, but "bad for me, good for the group" is the real meat of the problem. There's a couple of different flavors there. Is bad for me something thats actively bad, something that will have negative felt effects on me, or is it something that just isnt good for me, something I wont feel the positive effects of? Also, is "bad for me" a symptom of "bad for the group" in that the decision is exclusionary/the negative impacts predominately fall on a particular group? In this case, does being able to opt out alleviate concerns you have, or is there something larger you're objecting to beyond that? Few decisions are universally good for everyone, so were your concerns heard and weighed as part of the discussion? How that translates to a vote can be a little tricky/subjective, but in general if there are no active harmful effects, just absence of benefit for you then that would be a vote yes with caveat. Other consensus systems have a "stand aside" which is "if the rest of the group thinks this is good then I'll go with it, but I have some problem with the decision as a whole beyond how it impacts me" where a certain number of stand asides equal a block - doing something everyone feels lukewarm about is not great consensus. We could make abstentions mean that if that makes sense, altho an abstain means something slightly different ("I dont have enough information here but that wasnt the fault of the process" or "this us wholly irrelevant to me" or "I have some conflict of interest"). If you feel like this would have negative impacts on you that you feel like weren't seriously addressed during the discussion, or arent reflected in the outcome, then vote no. | |||
Thats all my interpretation, not gospel or True, and the "meaning of votes" being somewhat up to interpretation and variable between systems is one of the things that makes consensus messy | |||
|Link=https://discord.com/channels/1049136631065628772/1049184383220846693/1156341922357579796 | |||
}} | }} | ||