Blocked proposals

Well, I think we should allow blocks, and we should at the least have a civil discussion with the blocker what is at issue.

I am not sure about the software, but can the cutoff date be extended for the proposal once it has been set? If so perhaps we extend the proposal for further discussion.

I find it odd that something so sweeping is given one day to be decided. I mean what does it mean if not all members vote? Does that mean that anything put up for a vote is in stone?

I agree that the block vote can be abused, but I think it warrants that we have a vote that reflects how strongly a person might feel about something, especially that is moving forward too expediently, and it should be in the record that this has happened. It may be that a person is not adverse to the proposal but to the people deciding it and to the time given it for discussion. That to me can be construed as gaming the system. Is that what we want to set as a precedent here?

In any case, if a person ends up just blocking to block, then that will in time be reflected in the record, and we will all live with that, and perhaps we can trust people to deal with that accordingly.

By the same token, having votes rushed through and setting down tracks for rules before a decent representation of the community is here doesn't seem to be a good practice.

Which goes back to what I've been asking. What is community here? if it is just what community was before the D devs decided to give this to the community, that is only community coders, not users and not podmins, then why not say that clearly?

If it is open to everyone (even me!), then why not discuss what we envision this community to be? I think the software has been in use long enough to allow us to discuss that.

I think many people are watching and want to know this before they get involved. I don't blame them. And because I know they are out there, I'm pressing my arguments.

I don't mean any disrespect to anyone, and I hope that that is understood. I know that we are all here because we want to see this network thrive, which is in reality the people, that is the community that uses it.

I think blocking has to be for a reason, and if it occurrs, it depends on the current mayority of votes in which direction it should go.

Ideally we'd have only good ideas, and people who block the proposals have some serious specific issue with that idea. If the rest of the votes is for the proposal, we should try and resolve that issue (possibly by reaching a middle ground everyone can live with) - the blocker can still vote 'no' but at least the block should be resolved.

On the other hand, if the idea it met with repeated disapproval or blocks, it is obvious the proposal is in some way flawed and should probably be reconsidered.

I dunno, if someone really wants to see a proposal fail for some reason, what's to stop them from blocking a proposal repeatedly?

Another thought: is voting no on a proposal and stating reasons as to why you don't like it somehow not enough that a proposal needs to be blocked?

Sean: Yes, that's the potential for abuse that I'm worried about. I have heard about that very thing happening in other organizations. Instead of a tyranny of the majority, you have a tyranny of the minority. A small group can hold disproportionate power by simply refusing to compromise and repeatedly blocking.

In the loomio video it mentions the drawbacks of having members who hold more sway in face-to-face decisions just because they attend more meetings or have the loudest voice. To me, blocking is like shouting at a meeting. There might be times where it is appropriate, but those are rare. It would need to be a "STOP, THIS WILL BREAK EVERYTHING!" type of event. Not an "I really disagree with this proposal" event. Democracy is a funny thing. Getting more votes doesn't necessarily make it the right or best decision. But it does make it the community's decision. And at least in our first steps, I think that a plain majority decision is a method I could live with. Do we really need that emergency brake that anyone can pull? A convincing argument is far more effective than a single mouse click.

@Sean, @Brent, @Dave: I think there are many ways that the system can be abused. I think a block is to say what it says in the hover, and I took it to mean what it said: "I have strong objections to this motion and I'm not OK with it going ahead." Whether someone wants to start a group or not on Loom is very controlling. I think it borders on censorship. And the issue was only given a day to decide upon it. That seems that could be abusive too.

For me Block is expression. Not a dictator's degree. I think it is useful to know if someone doesn't like how something is building up the voting process. I think a block should invite discussion. But I also am agreed that endless blocks are not productive. But does that mean we forbid them? Just because we are afraid of something in the future that hasn't happened?

I mean what did the Loom devs mean to have a block vote in the first place? I think having an emergency brake that anyone can pull helps a minority be heard if they feel they aren't being heard. It allows an opportunity for that.

I think we all will know if someone is abusing blocks. But then that will be left to remain displayed for the record and people can decide how much to pay heed to a well intentioned or bad intentioned block.

Is it really foul to use a block? I certainly didn't intend it that way. I just meant to express how I felt about the proposal going forward. I know that whatever people decide will go beyond the pie chart. I didn't think it was so definitive.

Also I thought we were evaluating the tool? I think this is all a good exercise.

Well, if we allow blocking, how much power should it be given? Should it stop a proposal dead in its tracks, or should the countdown to the proposal be paused somehow for a deliberation? Is it intended as a strong way of saying no, speaking your case, and then leaving those in an opposite position to consider?

The Loom designers made these tools to be flexible. Different projects come up with their own interpretations, guidelines, and policies. Deciding on a good decision-making process is important, so that a community may better achieve consensus.