Loomio
Fri 28 Aug 2020

Proposed change to e-NABLE's Loomio voting process

JS
Jeremy Simon Public Seen by 95

We've noticed a potential shortcoming in our current voting process. In a recent proposal from Nate Munro, several people commented that they would like to see some changes in the proposal. But since others had already voted, Nate was hesitant to make changes to what was being proposed.

Loomio makes it easy to start a discussion thread (like this one, for example) and then later add a proposal to that thread to allow voting to take place.

We are proposing that moving forward, all new funding requests start with a discussion thread, which would run for at least one week. Only after that discussion has taken place would the proposal be added to allow voting to commence.

In keeping with this proposed approach, I'll leave this discussion thread open for a week before starting a vote.

Please share your thoughts and comments below.

JS

Jon Schull Fri 28 Aug 2020

  1. I think there should also be a minimum duration for voting as well (a week)?

  1. a. We might also like to have some way of dealing with important cases for when (1 week+1 week) is too burdensome.

  2. To be clear, the Loomio voting process IS designed to allow people to change votes as proposals are revised. But timing does become an issue as a deadline approaches.

    The pre-voting discussion should help minimize the need for proposal changes during voting. HOWEVER, proposal changes during voting should continue to be allowed; perhaps with a mandatory N-day extension to allow people to review and change votes.?

P.S. This is not to rain on Nate's parade. He's doing great work, tt was a good proposal, and I think the community voted made a humane and informed judgement with the information and time available. But more information and time should be available in the future.


JS

Jeremy Simon started a proposal Fri 4 Sep 2020

Modification to Loomio voting process for e-NABLE proposals Closed Fri 11 Sep 2020

Outcome
by Jeremy Simon Fri 11 Sep 2020

Proposal is approved. Will update Loomio voting instructions accordingly.

We are proposing that moving forward, all new funding requests start with a discussion thread, which would run for at least one week. Only after that discussion has taken place would the proposal be added to allow voting to commence.

We further propose that each proposal should require a minimum voting duration of 7 days.

Exceptions to both of the above rules may be approved by the Strategic Planning Committee for situations where an expedited voting process is deemed appropriate.

We further propose that those initiating a new proposal be invited (and encouraged) to join one of our weekly SPC (Strategic Planning Committee) meetings to discuss their proposal. The recording of that discussion can then be shared along with the proposal to provide a better understanding of what's being proposed.

Agree - 23
Abstain - 1
Disagree - 0
Block - 0
24 people have voted (14%)
JS

Jeremy Simon
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

TS

Teri Sanor
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

AAM

Ahmad Alhaj Moussa
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

EL

Everton Lins
Abstain
Fri 4 Sep 2020

What if all new funding requests start with a project pitch at one of the SPC meetings and after that start the discussion thread? This way everyon that want to vote can whatch the recorded meeting and then decice.

SM

Shawn Mathiesen
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

MB

Madison Bondoc
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

BR

Bob Rieger
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

MB

Michael Bowman
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

KB

Ken Bice
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

In what space should proposals be posted on the hub? Do we create a separate one?

B

Ben
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

Discussions have been very helpful for me in shaping proposals and collaborating with the community.

DE

David Elentukh
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

QM

Quinn Morley
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

W

Wayne
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

A discussion before any decision is just a good practice.

E

ebubar
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

S

Shashi
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

WM

Will McCaffrey
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

This is very fair.

JS

Jon Schull
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

M

Magi
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

This sounds very fair and reasonable

RB

Rich B
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

This will provide a review process by piers.

SM

Skip Meetze
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

RV

Richard VanderMey
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

AN

Alberto Navatta
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

MM

Michelle Massie
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

NRW

Nelson Reynolds Walsh
Agree
Fri 4 Sep 2020

MB

Michael Bowman Fri 4 Sep 2020

Could someone give an example of a situation where an expedited voting process would be appropriate?

JS

Jon Schull Sat 5 Sep 2020

@Michael Bowman, examples where expediting might be desirable might include travel funds for a near-term a speaking engagement, or a rubber-stamping of a proposed targeted donation to a well-known chapter (as happened once with e-NABLE Sierra Leone) that we didn't want to have slip away.

But the exceptions should be rare and only requested when really necessary and important.

Similarly, while the proposal does not currently REQUIRE a presentation to SPC (something that @Everton Lins advocates, and I could be persuaded is critical), a presentation is "encouraged" and SPC will discuss ripe proposals even if there is no presentation. I think declining to present should be considered a red flag and in many cases a good reason to vote against a proposal that has not been fully vetted.

MB

Michael Bowman Sun 6 Sep 2020

Thank you @Jon Schull for the explanation. Ready to get this passed!