Proposal 4: procedures of the decision-making group

Details

WRITTEN: September 20, 2024

VOTE: 17 endorse, 1 no objection, 1 abstain

PASSED

Text of proposal

provisional proposal

proposed expectations of members

• some available time to at least read proposals and provide any input on them you feel is necessary

  • having time to at least skim chats would also be helpful, but efforts will be made to synthesize or copy over any important points to a more accessible venue

• the willingness to speak up, even if you might be the only one who will for an issue you feel needs addressing. the point of a consensus system is to incorporate everyone's concerns--otherwise, there's no sense in it versus regular voting

• an openness to changing your mind when other people give feedback

• the willingness to sometimes make compromises, especially about ideas you feel attached to, without feeling attacked or taking it personally

• the ability to handle and regulate some level of frustration; it is likely at least some conversations in the process will be painful, irritating, frustrating, or long-winded and this will grate on you.

• the ability to work in good faith with people (even if you might personally not like them for one reason or another)

proposed principles of the decision-making process

Zapatista principles of “good government” that are the basis of everything else so far, which are:

• to serve others not oneself;

• to represent not supplant;

• to build not destroy;

• to obey not command;

• to propose not impose;

• to convince not defeat;

• to go below (to listen to the people we are building this for) not above (toward the accumulation of our own power as a group)

this is with the ultimate goal of working for the survival of the collective Website League, and fulfilling any responsibilities that are defined by the communities in the League. 

procedure for adding members

Effective beginning October 1, or when the League is formalized (whichever comes first)

• There are currently three ways to join the decision-making group, which are:

  1. A person (or group of people) apply to start a new node and voluntarily ask to join the decision-making group - this will require vetting the node itself (for adhering to our requirements) and each member of staff that wants to be in the decision-making group;

  2. Staff of an existing node nominate a new staff member to (or the staff member asks to join) the decision-making group - this requires vetting the one person;

  3. A member of the decision-making group nominates a new member based on other criteria;

• Consensus will be sought on all additions to the group regardless of way of joining; if no consensus is reached a person will not be added.

• If no consensus can be reached but the situation is deemed extraordinary (for example a crisis or an emergency), a vote may be taken instead. This vote would require a 2/3rds majority (67%) to pass, and any person(s) added by vote must eventually go through the typical process to remain in the group.

Archive of discussion

VIS: I suggest that there be three cases. either:

• A person, or a group of people, apply to start a new node. This is a case that requires more attention and care, since we have to verify that the new node meets our federation requirements and vet its staff.

• The current staff of an existing node nominate a new staff member. This requires less time, since we just have to vet the one person.

• A member of the decision-making body nominates a new member based on other criteria (#2 on proposal 1, "relevant skillset")

case 2 and 3 are similar in what they require from the decision making body but i think are distinct enough to warrant different cases