Loomio
Sat 30 Jun 2018 3:44AM

Bylaws revision: Clarity on proposals

NS Nathan Schneider Public Seen by 49

Based on this discussion and proposal in the Governance Working Group, we propose a modification in the wording of the bylaws in order to address some confusion that has arisen about the meaning of the existing terms, particularly regarding the procedural status of the Abstain and Block tools.

NS

Poll Created Sat 30 Jun 2018 3:45AM

Bylaws revision: Clarify proposal process Closed Tue 10 Jul 2018 3:02AM

Outcome
by Nathan Schneider Tue 10 Jul 2018 3:19PM

Clearly this set of changes isn't perfect, but there is no ambiguity that the proposal has passed, which will hopefully prevent any future ambiguity as we continue the journey of honing and developing the terms of our community together.

Thanks to all who participated—in developing the proposal and in engaging with it, in all ways.

Based on this discussion and proposal in the Governance Working Group, we propose a modification in the wording of the bylaws in order to address some confusion that has arisen about the meaning of the existing terms, particularly regarding the procedural status of the Abstain and Block tools. This is not intended to be a change to the bylaws, although the discussion it has aroused indicates that there is interest in more significant future alterations to the decision-making process. Those discussions can begin in appropriate threads in the Governance Working Group.

The proposed adjustments are as follows.

Under the "Governance" heading, this section:

  • At least 6 days allowed for members to weigh in on the proposal
    • A shorter period is permitted for proposals labeled URGENT in the Title, along with a specified and valid justification in the Details
  • Agreement by at least 50% of voting members
  • No blocks, unless 90% agreement is reached

Should be changed to this:

  • At least 6 days allowed for members to participate
    • A shorter period is permitted for proposals labeled URGENT in the Title, along with a justification in the Details
  • More Agree votes than Disagree votes

Abstain votes allow members to register opinions or concerns without being counted. A Block vote represents a fundamental disagreement—a belief that the proposal violates Social.coop's core principles. Proposals with Block require at least 9 times more Agree votes than Disagree and Block votes in order to pass.

And under the "Modifications" section, this section:

These bylaws may be modified at any time through a proposal passing in the full group as follows:

  • At least 10 days allowed for members to weigh in
  • Agreement by at least 75% of voting members
  • No blocks, unless 95% agreement is reached

Should be changed to this:

These bylaws may be modified at any time through a proposal passing in the full group under the same rules as stated above, except requiring a 10-day period of participation, at least 3 times as many Agree votes as Disagree votes, and, if there is a Block, least 9.5 times more Agree votes than Disagree and Block votes.

END OF PROPOSED CHANGES

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 95.0% 19 RDB JD NS AW MC RB MN ST LS MK AW GIM J JH NS GSF JB DM M
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 5.0% 1 MH
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 82 DS KF ST F CG GJ SH C G AM CCC ELP TB S SC PA SG JG D DB

20 of 102 people have participated (19%)

NS

Nathan Schneider
Agree
Sat 30 Jun 2018 3:48AM

I'm grateful for the extensive discussion in the Working Group that led to this decision. Thanks, friends!

RDB

Richard D. Bartlett
Agree
Mon 2 Jul 2018 7:55AM

Makes sense to me

AW

Aaron Wolf
Agree
Mon 2 Jul 2018 9:27PM

I'm agreeing because all changes are improvements. But I really don't like Bylaws changes without a requirement of a quorum of participation.

MH

Michał "phoe" Herda
Disagree
Tue 3 Jul 2018 5:22PM

I have verified that percentages will be rolling onto Loomio in general. Because of this, I want to stay with the current percentage system in the rules.

ST

Sam Toland
Agree
Tue 3 Jul 2018 8:57PM

I think this is an improvement/clarification of the existing rules.

Could be iterated further in the future, but the rule remains adequate for now.

I'm agnostic on the percent/proportion question.

Happy to see abstention/blocks clarified.

Thanks!

FHM
Vote removed
JB

Jake Beamish
Agree
Wed 4 Jul 2018 8:32AM

Looks good to me, reads much better especially with the wording about blocks :)

JD

Josef Davies-Coates
Agree
Wed 4 Jul 2018 11:23AM

I would've abstained but I want my vote to count! :P

I actually think "Agreement by at least 75% of voting members" is clearer than "at least 3 times as many Agree votes as Disagree votes" but no worries.

FHM

Fabián Heredia Montiel Sat 30 Jun 2018 5:31AM

I think phrasing still has issues since it changes from a proportion to a "times than". Particularly, lets say 9 disagree and there is one block; it would require 95 agrees or 95/105 Agree/Disagree-Block votes. (90.5% from an original 95%)

"at least 3 times as many Agree votes as Disagree votes, and, if there is a Block, least 9.5 times more Agree votes than Disagree and Block votes."

However, I don't feel like 90% to 95% makes a strong difference and I don't think phrasing is worse off this way - and haven't been as involved as I expected lately - so I opt to abstain and let others decide.

Load More