Proposal: Change voting rules to require a quorum

[Paul]

I think having members vote on issues is a great idea but we need to
set some ground rules for how these issues are voted on. You don't
want 2 members to show up and have them be the only people who decide
on large issues.

I propose we mandate at least 8 dues-paid members, not including board
members, be present to compose a quorum.
Any less and no votes can be held that session.

I'm open for debate on all portions of my proposal.

Thanks

Paul Hickey

[Corey Renner]

Quorum, I love it.  Very BSG.

 

c

[Jerry Gable]

Showing up in person to vote, how 20th century.  I haven't been to a polling place in years.

 

You guys should be able to come up with something online.  As a minimum I would think you could use a closed google or yahoo group to do it in.

 

Jerry Gable
Balloon Flights from APRS-IS
Launch Notifications by email, twitter, & APRS
http://www.s3research.com/flightdata/

[Jasper Nance]

Well to be fair the entire hackerspace concept really does refer to a
physical space and real personal interaction.

--
----------------------------------------------
Jasper Nance - KE7PHI
Creative and Scientific Imagery
http://www.nebarnix.com/

[Jerry Gable]

I can see that but do you set up a specific time to vote?  It seems like people show up at all hours and having a specific number of people there at a given time might be difficult.

 

Maybe people use their badges to vote on a topic.  A topic is open for xx hours and when you show up you vote.  I don't think any of this stuff would be secret ballot would it?

 

Jerry Gable
Balloon Flights from APRS-IS
Launch Notifications by email, twitter, & APRS
http://www.s3research.com/flightdata/

[Will Bradley]

Currently the voting is scheduled for "Hack Your Hackerspace" nights which happen about biweekly. I recommend physical voting because the internet is filled with armchair experts who haven't necessarily even visited the space recently or understand its needs; if proposals are posted online and discussion happens online, people have ample opportunity to schedule the time to vote or at least sway others to their opinion.

[Scott Bailey]

I hate bureaucracy and politics.  Please don't ruin my club with it.  :(

[Will Bradley]

Nobody needs to be involved if they don't want :) this was made in response to the dozens of contentious space issues presented over the past weeks. If you haven't been in the lab you probably aren't aware of any of them and I understand this perhaos feels unnecessary. Suffice it to say the lab is jam-packed with lots of different people doing different things, which is a recipe for both awesomeness and strife.

Having talked and worked with the people who are in the lab almost daily, I think member voting will be the best thing short of totalitarianism...which actually is really nice and clean as long as you supply your leaders with more wine and gold than the other guy ;)

[Paul Hickey]

How many dues paid members do we have right now? I think we should
set the quorum at a percentage of total membership so it can be
flexible and not have to be adjusted every time we have an increase or
(god forbid) decrease in membership

Paul

[Jacob Rosenthal]

The quorum would have to be low. We had turn out at our board meetings of average of maybe 1 member at board meetings in the past. The point of this isnt to let members force lack of voting, but to force members to drag their ass in if they're passionate about a topic rather than sniping on the forums for weeks at a time.

[Paul Hickey]

Im fine with it being relatively low but id hatredor business to be conducted with a voting base of 3 or 4 people. I dont think that best  serves the interests of the membership

Paul Hickey

sent from my Android device

[Scott Bailey]

Oh.  I was completely unaware.  We can't do business like this.  3 people voting?

We need to net vote.

I formally propose we move to net voting.

SB

On Aug 13, 2011 5:47 PM, "Jacob Rosenthal" <jakero...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Corey Renner]

+1
C

[Ryan Rix]

> We can't do business like this. 3 people voting?

This is what happens when people constantly armchair and don't actually show up to vote or make the space actually run.

r

-- Sent from my HP TouchPad

---

[Scott Bailey]

Ryan,

That's one way to look at it.

Another is that the kind of people who invest in HSL aren't necessarily interested in attending management meetings in person.

SB

--
Scott Bailey

[Jacob Rosenthal]

Its a shame Will didn't properly introduce this idea better, but this is where we're at.

We have board meetings where big decisions are made and the organization is steered with quorum and all sorts of other fun stuff.

We have forums where people can ask great questions and get answers from some of the smartest people in PHX and around the world as well as just plain bullshit with eachother.

The goal behind hack your hackerspace is to GET SHIT DONE-- AT THE SPACE. If you have a lack of willingness to show up for 'administration', everyone is VERY ok with that.  However those who DO show up are not going to not get shit done because people want to talk about it on the internet.

These small votes are for goofy operational shit like if we should keep the arcade machine that showed up, how to deal with people sleeping in the space and where should the laser cutter be moved to.

Your, or anyone elses inability to be at the space, whether it be for project work or administration  frankly means you don't have a stake one way or another to these questions. If and when you do have a stake again, you should feel free to show up and propose to change the space around again.  

[Paul Hickey]

Thats all fine but where do we draw the line between little things like that and what some may consider major items such as which conditions must a person meet to gain 24/7 access. I dont think having some kind of quorum is too much to ask. Almost every formal organization I have been part of requires one especially when they are a decision making body.  There have been major changes recently in the organizational structure and that in turn requires a little bit of tweaking of process everywhere.

Paul Hickey

sent from my Android device

On Aug 14, 2011 9:56 AM, "Jacob Rosenthal" <jakero...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Scott Bailey]

This is my experience: meetings are places where people talk--action happens elsewhere.

Compared to a managerial meeting, this mailing list better serves me as the forum for discussion and decision making.  (Caveat: I haven't shown up to a 'hack your hackerspace' meeting yet, and few meetings so far...)

Here is my question: which format suits the greater number of members?

[Betsy Bailey]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jacob Rosenthal <jakero...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

The goal behind hack your hackerspace is to GET SHIT DONE-- AT THE SPACE. If you have a lack of willingness to show up for 'administration', everyone is VERY ok with that.  However those who DO show up are not going to not get shit done because people want to talk about it on the internet.

Talking about it on the Internet to the exclusion of  getting shit done and VOTING about it formally using the Internet as a tool to make the vote happen are two *entirely* different things. 

[Jacob Rosenthal]

Hack your Hackerspace isnt a meeting. Discussion should happen elsewhere. 95% percent of our space improvement work can't happen on the internet.  The other 5 percent is blogging, marketing, and coding, etc, which those involved in this conversation are also not aiding in from their armchair position.

There is no other way around it. We're going to be at the space on alternating Thursdays making it a better place.  You can join us or not. Your opinion will be heard, or it will not.

[Harry Meier]

To play a bit of devil's advocate here, In my experience, Hack your hackerspace is a meeting first. It's far less reasonable to expect that people and supplies and parts and furniture, etc. will be physically staged and ready for 7PM on a Thursday. The real hacking of the space occurs when it occurs. On a Friday, a Saturday, a Sunday, a Tuesday morning, etc. Hack your Hackerspace night is best used as the coordination meeting to get the teams together to plan and set plans in motion. In the same regard this forum is better used , as Jacob et al. have proposed, to get the discussion done ahead of time, so the meeting is more productive.

[Scott Bailey]

Jacob,

With Harry's help, you are making sense.  Of course, I'm still opposed to needing to show up to vote.  And I'm thinking my opinion is getting heard.

I calendared HYH on the 25th.  I will see what you mean in person.

SB

--
Scott Bailey

[Harry Meier]

Glad to be of help :)

To further muddy the waters a little though, I don't think this push to make HYH night totally a physical endeavor is right-headed. I would classify all sorts of committee planning activities to be very much HYH material. And lab work is very much comprised of collaboration on this forum as much as it is people physically working on things in the lab. Frankly I take some offense at the inclination that people who don't show up are arm chair anything, and I'm one who is at the lab a lot of the time.

Also, since the board has made it clear they don't want to be responsible for the day to day operational policies and their enforcement it very much falls on the membership and operations team(s) appointed by Will to make these policies and decisions. If we're overstepping and the board doesn't like the direction we're setting, then they can step back in any time and take the reigns again.

So to that end I'd like to amend this proposal to the following:

I propose we mandate at least a combined 50% of members in good standing, including board

members, be present or have submitted a vote in absentia to compose a quorum for any given proposal.

The treasurer will provide a current membership in good standing list to operations no more than 48hrs prior to each meeting where member votes are to occur. If less than 50% of membership votes on any given proposal, that proposal will be tabled until a later session. Members may wish to submit a standing order to abstain from any votes in which they are not actively participating. Abstain votes count toward the 50%. In absentia votes must be submitted directly to operations in writing and any electronic messages must clearly state that this is a vote on a specific proposal. Statements of opinion in forums, electronic or otherwise, do not count as votes unless separately sent directly to operations. Votes sent in absentia are not secret ballots, and names may be read at the vote to tally totals. 

I'd also clarify that when I say Treasurer and Operations I mean a representative of the office thereof. I don't necessarily expect Jose and Will to be totally responsible there. I'd like to see voting and the dialog around proposals kept as open as possible, so the mechanism for absentia voting should be clear and direct, but not complex and bureaucratic. Perhaps just a votes at heatsynclabs dot org address and a ballot box held on site for written notes will be acceptable. No vote tallying software or overzealous methods to make sure we have one vote per member. 

[Will Bradley]

I like the discussion here but the problem of voting is that to make an effective governance out of it you necessarily exclude someone, whether you exclude people not physically present, people who don't check the email list, people who aren't full members, spouses of full members, guests, the public, etc. No matter what, someone somewhere won't have a vote and that's fine.

Setting the bar at being physically present is a model used by other hackerspaces to make sure that power over the space is given to the people using the space AND shows enough interest in the space's issues to attend. If we open it up to online, power is given to whoever fills out our membership roster; a simple unrefined majority.

An example: I am a dues-paying member of Noisebridge despite having never been to the space; I just want to support them. If they asked for an opinion of the online community, perhaps I'd give my opinion. If they put it to an online vote, maybe I'd vote on it. But the result would be that I would have an uneducated opinion, having never or rarely visited Noisebridge, and yet my "armchair" vote would affect the most active and involved members of Noisebridge. I could vote that Noisebridge's AC never be turned below 80' and never experience any of the consequences. That's not right.

I still think physical voting is the best way for our hackerspace to self govern. We're a physical place for creation first, a vibrant online community second. If you care enough about an issue but can't attend, you can certainly discuss online and convince other people, but to have ~40 invisible online members dictating the way the physical space works for the few who are there every day seems wrong to me. How should you have a vote on what the AC should be set at, unless you've been here to know what setting it to 76' feels like and will be around during the day when it gets hot?

Of course I welcome any and all proposals for the vote next meeting.

[Harry Meier]

As always I both agree and disagree. Yes there will always be people who's opinions slip through the cracks. That's the point of asking for a quorum, to make sure at least half of the interested parties have some say. If there's 40 members then only 20 need to chime in, and 11 could effectively pass something. If you have an opinion on something and care enough to both give your money and your voice to the organization, then you deserve a vote. By logic the people being physically effected by a decision should also be the ones most vocal. If you have a philosophical disagreement with any thermostat in the world being set lower than 80 and you pay  to have a voice in it, you will most certainly be drowned out by the many voices that have to sweat in the lab. I see no danger there. I do however see a danger in sending out the message that if you don't show up your vote doesn't count. That's actively dis-empowering people.  

[Will Bradley]

The problem is that now a few voices who were busy hacking on things would have to get online to battle with the multitude of voices of people who they don't even know. We get new active members every week, and dozens of passerby walk in weekly as well.

If you haven't sat down at the lab in the past month, you are not connected to what's happening. You should come in and be active! But giving governance power to inactive members feels very much like the British telling us Americans what to do. I'd be going to the lab to institute a new policy and half the people in the lab would be surprised and appalled by the invisible members' online decision. The only members who would be pleased would be those who spend their day reading this amazingly-active discussion list instead of actually visiting the workspace in question. Trust me it's extremely hard to do both.

I don't want to alienate anyone who is paying dues yet hasn't had the time to visit; far from it, you are a big reason why we can have a space at all. But you should distance yourself appropriately from the day-to-day running of the space until you become active enough to know, for example, whether our three smaller Ikea tables are large enough to serve as both storage and workspace. Or whether the laser needs a separate electrical circuit from the lathe. Or who spent hours last night cleaning up the metalworking shop to make it usable for the very first time (no guessing!) Without knowing stuff like this, how is your opinion equally valid to someone who was involved enough to know such things?

The problem is that now a few voices who were busy hacking on things would have to get online to battle with the multitude of voices of people who they don't even know. We get new active members every week, and dozens of passerby walk in weekly as well.

If you haven't sat down at the lab in the past month, you are not connected to what's happening. You should come in and be active! But giving governance power to inactive members feels very much like the British telling us Americans what to do. I'd be going to the lab to institute a new policy and half the people in the lab would be surprised and appalled by the invisible members' online decision. The only members who would be pleased would be those who spend their day reading this amazingly-active discussion list instead of actually visiting the workspace in question. Trust me it's extremely hard to do both.

I don't want to alienate anyone who is paying dues yet hasn't had the time to visit; far from it, you are a big reason why we can have a space at all. But you should distance yourself appropriately from the day-to-day running of the space until you become active enough to know, for example, whether our three smaller Ikea tables are large enough to serve as both storage and workspace. Or whether the laser needs a separate electrical circuit from the lathe. Or who spent hours last night cleaning up the metalworking shop to make it usable for the very first time (no guessing!) Without knowing stuff like this, how is your opinion equally valid to someone who was involved enough to know such things?

There are about 250 nonmembers and about 30 somewhat-inactive members on this list, leaving the drowned-out voice of about 20 super active people to fend for themselves if some of these internet voting ideas pass. I don't think that's healthy for the hackerspace. Internet voting risks pissing off the very people who are actually doing the awesome stuff we're all contributing money for, and hurts the community by killing civil face-to-face discussion and replacing it with impersonal internet flame wars.

If the concern is that you might be a highly involved member who simply can't make it on Thursdays, then let's talk about how to fix that instead.

[Will Bradley]

To the actual quorum discussion and Scott's incredulity, I don't think 3 or 4 is a useful number. This week we had 10 and at the first HyHS meeting we had maybe 20 though it was jam packed. 1-3 is a typical number for board meetings but even last board meeting we had maybe 5.

I believe we have around 40-50 members at this point, so perhaps 10% would be a useful bare minimum to get things done especially considering that only maybe half of members have stepped foot in the lab in the past month. There are dozens of names on the roster even I can't place a face to. Keep in mind a quorum of 20% would quickly use up all chairs in the building especially as we get more members. And do we really need to rally dozens of people in order to let someone have an access card?

On Aug 13, 2011 12:20 PM, "Paul Hickey" <paulh...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Harry Meier]

Well, saying the HYH meeting isn't for discussing these things, and saying the forum is the place for proposal discussion has already done the part of "killing civil face-to-face discussion and replacing it with impersonal internet flame wars." True though, I am more concerned about involved members who can't make out on a Thursday (or even ones who show up at 7 to find that a large contingent of operations and board members just left to eat dinner so they leave) getting disenfranchised. I find there are equal numbers of people who hate the forums as there are people who hate offline discussions and ad-hoc decisions that get made at 2AM on a Wednesday. There has to be a happy medium somewhere.

So on the topic of the quorum: How many is reasonable? The number will vary based on what's on the agenda and what needs to get done. 

[Will Bradley]

Separately: thanks to everyone for speaking up and getting involved. I know this proposal/voting and card access thing got created quickly but honestly giving you all the power to choose the direction of the space had to happen ASAP, I'd run out of time to build support online. In order to stop making adhoc decisions by myself as the operational contact for the board, I had to make an adhoc decision to let members make decisions instead.

Regarding the card access deal, in the few days since the HyHS meeting there have been at least two new members and many more potential members all asking about cards. For the first time since we moved in I was able to tell them something useful and appropriate about getting a card. If you decide to abolish or change that arbitrary rule I set up, please do so! I just didn't want to wait another two weeks and who knows how many access cards later for the lab to have a working policy.

Same thing with use of the space; every other day there was a new space allocation issue and everyone had different opinions. Putting it to a vote has greatly reduced contention for floorspace, there's finally some kind of system and it's finally 100% community driven. And if you don't want it to be community driven anymore, you can vote on that too. But I haven't had to make an adhoc decision since, so that seems like an improvement.

I'm sorry for the confusion and mess but am relieved at the discussion happening here. It's your hackerspace!

[Scott Bailey]

*IF* there is a posted agenda AND the agenda is followed tightly in time and content AND there is a method for me to vote in absentia (i.e.TDY for work), THEN I think I can probably handle in person voting for the things I care about.

[Scott Bailey]

Wait a minute.  So those 20 in the lab get to drown out the 30 on the list?

[Harry Meier]

Maybe an offline discussion is in order. There's a lot of back and forth here, and it sounds like a handful of interested parties (myself, Scott, Will, others?) could benefit from hammering out something we can agree to without subjecting the masses to the detailed text of the debate. (Frankly I like having a text of the whole thing to look back on, but that's me.) Thoughts?

[Ryan Rix]

I think that holding this discussion online is the only reasonable medium, since getting the interested parties all in one place at one time proves to be not-easy.

-- Sent from my HP TouchPad

[Scott Bailey]

Not everyone is as tied to their email as I am.  You'd be amazed what I got accomplished between posts.  Anyway, we really haven't given others a chance to respond yet.

Also, Goggle' mute is awesome.

On Aug 14, 2011 8:42 PM, "Harry Meier" <hjm...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Ryan Rix]

Yes.

-- Sent from my HP TouchPad

[Harry Meier]

We'd be lucky to get 20 :)

[Scott Bailey]

Sigh.  Too bad.

The 30 should be paying the lions share of the bills...

On Aug 14, 2011 9:04 PM, "Ryan Rix" <r...@n.rix.si> wrote:

[Chisholm Wildermuth]

Since I have other obligations, I also only check the list every few days  and I find that many things happen ad-hoc on the list before I have a chance to read about them or discuss them.  Overall, the list is sort of useless to me since I don’t check it every 15-30 minutes.  I sort of check it after the fact so I’m not completely lost about what is going on. 

 

I guess I need to pay more attention since there’s a lot of new ad-hoc rules and procedures being made on here recently. 

[Will Bradley]

I am trying to post stuff as early as possible, but the space has new issues every other day so it's not always possible to wait 1-2 weeks so all 300 people on this list can get on the same page before doing something. There's an ops meeting next week and agenda items for it will be collected this week, so it's not too late to get your word in :)

> On Aug 14, 2011 8:42 PM, "Harry Meier" <hjm...@gmail.com<mailto:hjm...@gmail.com>> wrote:

[Will Bradley]

Also this voting thing is in fact a way to stop making adhoc decisions.

[Jasper Nance]

Do not forget that ad-hoc rules can be changed and challeneged!

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Chisholm Wildermuth
<CWild...@nxtgennetworks.com> wrote:
> Since I have other obligations, I also only check the list every few days
>  and I find that many things happen ad-hoc on the list before I have a
> chance to read about them or discuss them.  Overall, the list is sort of
> useless to me since I don’t check it every 15-30 minutes.  I sort of check
> it after the fact so I’m not completely lost about what is going on.
>
>
>
> I guess I need to pay more attention since there’s a lot of new ad-hoc rules
> and procedures being made on here recently.
>
>
>
> From: heatsy...@googlegroups.com [mailto:heatsy...@googlegroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Scott Bailey
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 8:52 PM
> To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
>
>
>

> Not everyone is as tied to their email as I am.  You'd be amazed what I got
> accomplished between posts.  Anyway, we really haven't given others a chance
> to respond yet.
>
> Also, Goggle' mute is awesome.
>
> On Aug 14, 2011 8:42 PM, "Harry Meier" <hjm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [HSL] Proposal: Change voting rules to require a quorum

--
----------------------------------------------
Jasper Nance - KE7PHI
Creative and Scientific Imagery
http://www.nebarnix.com/

[Jerry Gable]

This thread kind of reminds me of this dilbert strip

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jerry Gable
Balloon Flights from APRS-IS
Launch Notifications by email, twitter, & APRS
http://www.s3research.com/flightdata/

[Maya Kessler]

Hahaha. Nice addition. :) 

"Our stories are singular but our destiny is shared."

[Harry Meier]

BUMP

We've had a week of inactivity on this thread, and I'd like to see some modicum of consensus before the meeting Thursday. I see 2 distinct camps coming out of this: People who think operations decisions are solely the domain of people who can show up to the meeting, and People who want a say despite the fact that they can't always make it to the meetings. I haven't heard the voice of the mythical 

So back to Will's earlier comment, if the issue really is that you might be a highly involved member who simply can't make it on Thursdays, then let's talk about how to fix that. One idea I just had was that in person voting is required, but not necessarily at the meeting. We could have a ballot box that people could use to leave their vote anytime during the 7 days leading up to an ops meeting.

The second thing we need to figure out is what is a reasonable number for a quorum given the number of people who do show up to ops meetings? The original number was 8 not including board members. I said 50% if we allowed internet voting. We've been getting 10-20 people to show up at the meetings recently. And also remember that it only takes 51% of those people to approve something, so even with my proposal, if our membership is at 40 people it would only take 11 yes votes to pass a new policy. With Paul's original proposal as few as 5 people could pass a policy.

Further thoughts, debate points, etc?

[Paul Hickey]

I like the 50% for internet voting and the 8 not including board
members personally, or lets say 30% of total membership if in person
voting is the only means.

My proposal is an 8 person quorum not including board members, for
voting as it stands now

Paul

[Will Bradley]

Did your message get cut off after "mythical"?

[Harry Meier]

Yes they wouldn't be mythical if they had a name :)

What I meant there was the mythical forum troll that pays membership and wants a say in things they don't use.

[Scott Bailey]

Dude, that's me!  I pay dues, don't show up, and still wants a voice.

SB

--
Scott Bailey

[Harry Meier]

You were just there Saturday. I saw it.

[Chisholm Wildermuth]

I’d really like to have internet voting as well. 

 

From: heatsy...@googlegroups.com [mailto:heatsy...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Harry Meier
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 1:34 PM
To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HSL] Proposal: Change voting rules to require a quorum

 

You were just there Saturday. I saw it.

[Corey Renner]

I also find the concept that people who happen to be there on Thursdays have more of a voice than people who come in on other days to be absurd.  I tend to come in on Weds or Thurs so it would actually benefit me, but that doesn't make it a good rule.  Also, the idea that physically being in the space makes you more of an asset to HSL is equally ridiculous.

For example, I rarely see Todd in the lab, and yet he somehow manages to do more and cooler stuff than most of us and somehow still finds time to document it on his website.  If I sit on my ass in the lab updating my Facebook status for a few hours, does this make me more valuable to the community than Todd?  Under these proposed guidelines, it does.  This is silly. *

The voting in-person thing is foolish too.  The entire rest of the world (including our not-so-cutting-edge government) is moving toward electronic voting.  And us, the people who pride ourselves on being hi-tech, are moving backwards toward an in-person, in-convenient system.  Why don't we set up an electoral college while we're at it, we can have voting districts within the PHX metro area and send our representatives via mule cart to cast our votes by proxy.  Silly, no?

I get that we are trying to anticipate problems and prevent them, but sometimes when you fix a problem that doesn't even exist, it leads to bigger hassles than what you were trying to prevent.

cheers,

c

* Sorry Todd, I needed an example.  You came to mind first ;)

[Erica Weems]

This semester is going to suck, I have lab every Thursday from 7pm - 10pm. Right in the way, and there's not much I can do about it =[

[Corey Renner]

You must not care about the future of Heatsync.

c ;)

[Scott Bailey]

Can you PROVE it was me!  I didn't think so...    ;)  

I still think I'm essentially the character you are talking about.  Of course, I won't vote on things I don't care about...

Also, approving internet voting is not the same as implementing it.  If we move to internet voting, we need to empower someone or some group to implement a system.

SB

--
Scott Bailey

[Paul Hickey]

How about this as a compromise

We have in person ballot drop off (like we do for mail in voting) so
if there is a concern like where to move the vending machine to or
where a new piece of equipment goes, people voting on those issues can
actually see what is going on with the space and get an idea of what
they exactly they are voting on. Increase the quorum to 20 people.
That way it is more representative and they get to see what the big
deal is about moving/getting rid of/buying/etc stuff in the lab.

With a posting of the proposals 7 days before the vote count, so
everyone has at least a week to put in their vote in person to a
ballot box.

SO...

Change voting to allow walk-in ballots, with proposals posted 7 days
prior to vote counting. A quorum of 20 people, not including board
members, shall be set. In the absence of a quorum a re-vote on all
issues will be called.

Paul

[Jerry Gable]

I don't know any more about this site than what I got back from a google search but here is a site that does free online voting.  It was one of many that goole returned.  I would think if you want to do online voting it could be done.

 

http://www.ballotbin.com/ 

 

Jerry Gable
Balloon Flights from APRS-IS
Launch Notifications by email, twitter, & APRS
http://www.s3research.com/flightdata/

From: Paul Hickey <paulh...@gmail.com>
To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [HSL] Proposal: Change voting rules to require a quorum

[Jacob Rosenthal]

We're a volunteer community where the only things that get done are things that people are passionate about.  Realize that this means that passionate ones are the ones left doing things, and things that should be done but don't have a passionate sponsor don't get done sadly.  This is fine and frankly as it should be.

Hack your Hackerspace isn't a meeting.  Stop thinking that you can 'send in your absentee ballot.'  Who is going to take your votes, tally the internet and in person votes, write forum posts updating everyone, and actually enact your proposals?  You can't vote -action- when there are no employees!  Volunteers do work because they're passionate about it, not because you voted from the comfort of your home. 

I'm not telling you this as a board member dictating what you can and can not do in the organization. I'm telling you as someone with some experience with community.  If you want change you need to get your ass in the lab and MAKE change PERSONALLY or you will find only disappointment.

[Scott Bailey]

Right.  I hear you on getting things done.

Now, quit telling me voting doesn't happen at HYH.

--
SB
via obnoxious little touch keyboard, sorry.

>> *From:* Paul Hickey <paulh...@gmail.com>
>> *To:* heatsy...@googlegroups.com
>> *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2011 3:30 PM
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [HSL] Proposal: Change voting rules to require a quorum

[Corey Renner]

Maybe.

But at some point, the community is going to notice that the response is always:

"Thank you for your valued feedback,  we will now proceed to do exactly what we had already decided we were going to do in the first place."

If you're making decrees, then just call them as such so that those of us who care don't continue wasting our breath spouting unwelcome ideas.

So, is it safe to assume that the voting thing is going to happen on Thursdays, in person, just like you guys said in the first place?

c

[Paul Hickey]

I would have to guess that the voting this thursday is gonna occur normally until it is voted otherwise, like the proposal we are arguing now.

Paul Hickey

sent from my Android device

[Harry Meier]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Jacob Rosenthal <jakero...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hack your Hackerspace isn't a meeting.  

...

So what would you can a standard time slot when people get together to vote on things then break off into groups to implement? It looks and quacks a lot like a meeting to me. I say as I said before HYH is a meeting, and the magical remodeling work you expect to get done in that time slot is best done when those passionate small groups coordinate. 

Case and point: Tim and I met at HYH to discuss a plan for electronics workbenches. We discussed a high level vision, agreed to research options and called it a night. We then went off, did our research, posted to the group our ideas, got feedback, and implemented them the following Friday. Viola. We have workbenches because we used HYH as a meeting instead of trying to jam all the work into that little time constraint.

[Will Bradley]

Harry I think Jacob means that HYH Night should be a time for action -- voting, organizing, planning, getting things done, just as you and Tim did -- and not hours-long debate, nor a time to mail your vote in or drop it off and leave. In other words the space needs actual work done in order to stay working, and HYH Night is currently the regularly scheduled time to come together and do it, whether that's efficiently making decisions or breaking out the wrenches.

I appreciate and am happy with all the proposals you all have put forth! It's our duty as board members to guide the organization in fulfilling its awesome goals. The current goal is for sustainable community self-management, and the specifics don't matter as much as that the system works. The definition of "works" is one of the big topics I see debated here, which is great.

So, you should all consider what will actually work. Especially in terms of giving decisionmaking power to the right people so that the result of the vote is a good and representative decision, and in terms of ensuring that decisions are funded and staffed so that they actually happen. Those considerations are why I started out with an in-person framework that will no doubt evolve. Many people who are here in the epicenter of the lab's activities have observed for months if not years that it's very easy for people to type out an email from the comfort of their desk, but very hard to get those same people to back up their talk with driving-to-the-lab-on-a-Monday action. Hell, it's hard enough to back up our own talk with action, and we've already committed multiple nights per week to be in the lab working on lab business.

So by requiring in-person votes, or at least physically-dropped-off votes, the community would be trying to ensure that those affecting the lab's decisionmaking actually have a chance of showing up to implement the (frequently physical) decisions they voted for. Perhaps that can happen with internet voting, but based on what I've heard from the dozens of people in the lab every week, the chances of that so far haven't been great. 

Finally, physical votes (especially live, in-person votes) are easily and instantly counted by all present. No waiting/relying on an officiator to create/print ballots, or login to the voting account, or remember to count the ballot box and report results. If a system depends on an individual's constant involvement in order to run, you can count on it breaking. Even gradeschoolers can come together and call for a show of hands; no Board Member, Chair, or Diebold necessary; that's what I call sustainable.

But regardless, I am happy with and will respect the community's decision. The important thing is that the framework for community self-management is in place and if the community makes a bad decision it can reverse that decision 2 weeks later. Or if everyone votes for something and nobody shows up to make it happen, maybe it's moot. I have faith in the HeatSync community's ability to make awesome things happen and this is no exception. 

Thanks for co-creating one of the best hackerspaces on the planet! Seriously, other well-known spaces are jealous of you all from every angle. Many of them are still figuring out rent and tools and we're debating perpetual self-governance of a Main Street location. Many others have more money and tools but no passionate community to hack on things. Bravo! You've done it, and are continuing to do it. This is a wildly successful experiment in nonprofit, community-driven hackerspaces and it'll only get better.

[Jacob Rosenthal]

The goal of HYH is by no means to strip members of their voice.  I can see why people are disappointed they missed out on a vote for a membership level price change.  The majority of votes at HYH shouldn't and hopefully wont be on that level anyway.  Since we want to post and discuss all points to be voted on on the board the week before votes, can we have some system where the internet community can call shenanigans on certain topics and we can handle those differently?

[Scott Bailey]

Yes.

--
SB
via obnoxious little touch keyboard, sorry.

On Aug 23, 2011 12:04 PM, "Jacob Rosenthal" <jakero...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The goal of HYH is by no means to strip members of their voice. I can see
> why people are disappointed they missed out on a vote for a membership level
> price change. The majority of votes at HYH shouldn't and hopefully wont be
> on that level anyway. Since we want to post and discuss all points to be
> voted on on the board the week before votes, can we have some system where
> the internet community can call shenanigans on certain topics and we can
> handle those differently?
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Will Bradley <wi...@heatsynclabs.org>wrote:
>
>> Harry I think Jacob means that HYH Night should be a time for action --
>> voting, organizing, planning, getting things done, just as you and Tim did
>> -- and not hours-long debate, nor a time to mail your vote in or drop it off
>> and leave. In other words the space needs actual work done in order to stay
>> working, and HYH Night is currently the regularly scheduled time to come
>> together and do it, whether that's efficiently making decisions or breaking
>> out the wrenches.
>>
>> I appreciate and am happy with all the proposals you all have put forth!
>> It's our duty as board members to guide the organization in fulfilling its
>> awesome goals. The current goal is for sustainable community
>> self-management, and the specifics don't matter as much as that the system

>> *works*. The definition of "works" is one of the big topics I see debated
>> here, which is great.
>>
>> So, you should all consider what will actually *work.* Especially in terms

[Jasper Nance]

yeah ok, I like this as I have had mixed feelings about the whole
process IE missing something HUGE because I stepped out for a phone
call. This makes me feel a lot better about 'rider' bills so to speak.

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Jacob Rosenthal

--

[Jacob Rosenthal]

If that does become acceptable I would recommend the discussion of voting against a quorum or for a very small one.  We have 'big government' in the form of a board. I think its in all of our interest to be 'small goverment' when it comes to our agile team that meets bimonthly.

[Jasper Nance]

I also support this. I can see the "quorum" attendance being large
this meeting, smaller next, and then impossibly small thereafter to
the point where we never get anything done. If there's nothing huge to
be voted on then people won't show up because it doesn't affect them.
Oops, not enough people. I think 5-7 is not a bad number.

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Jacob Rosenthal

[Chisholm Wildermuth]

If you don't have a quorum requirement though, then the possibility exists for a small number of members to make big and drastic changes. I'm not sure if that is a good idea either.

Also, if you don't have a quorum requirement then EVERY proposal becomes "law" (either as a yay or nay to the proposal)...which means you'll end up with a lot of rules on the books. If something is only important enough to get two people to show up and not meet a quorum requirement, then do you really want something that unimportant becoming a rule we have to follow??

I think a quorum requirement weeds out the "crap" proposals that might come along. (Kind of like you need so many signatures to end up with a Prop on the Ballot...keeps anyone and everyone from adding frivolous Props to the ballot).

-----Original Message-----
From: heatsy...@googlegroups.com [mailto:heatsy...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jasper Nance
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 12:33 PM
To: heatsy...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [HSL] Proposal: Change voting rules to require a quorum

[Jasper Nance]

"big and drastic changes"

no this would be called out on the boards be delt with on a larger
level than the HYH meetings

[Jacob Rosenthal]

You'll have discussed the proposal the entire 2 weeks before the night, with proposal lock happening a week before.  Then you can undo any proposal the next month.

There is no permanent, there is nothing 'snuck in' 

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Chisholm Wildermuth <CWild...@nxtgennetworks.com> wrote:

[Jasper Nance]

Nah that's ok because these are "operations" rules. If they dont'
work, repeal them next meeting. OR call an emergency meeting if its
serious enough. But seriously these are things like "what do we do
with x over here oh and y is a problem what do?" not like "raise
membership to over $9000"

I fully agree that large huge sweeping things like card access and
money levels do NOT belong at a HYH meeting

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Chisholm Wildermuth
<CWild...@nxtgennetworks.com> wrote:

[Will Bradley]

Should there perhaps be a difference between operational decisions and rules? After all our most recent rule vote was Don't Make Us Make More Rules. But we'll still have to decide on routine stuff like if we want a basketweaving station, approving new members, etc. It'd suck to be a new member, have four people show up to vote on you, and have to wait another two weeks for a quorum.

When you say operations as distinct from the community and the board, you're basically talking about me and a few "Operations Team" members. If you want us dictating membership pricing I won't argue, but in an undictatorlike fashion I put it in the community's hands first. The board isn't really the place for pricing decisions.

Most systems that work well seem to have a fast/agile and slow/methodical component to them. I think the board is your slow/methodical component; if the community votes spiral out of control with craziness, the board is still there and able to take control if necessary. 

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Chisholm Wildermuth <CWild...@nxtgennetworks.com> wrote:

[Jasper Nance]

Really because I see the board as very much the place for pricing.
Pricing should be slow/methodical. it should NOT be a whimsical
biweekly decision.

[Chisholm Wildermuth]

I agree for pricing it should be slow and methodical; but I also agree with Will that I don't really want that to be a board decision only. I deal with nearly yearly increases in my HOA dues because the HOA board decides they need more money... and I really have no say in it since that's an HOA board vote. It's kind of annoying.

Anyhow, I guess it's hard to make some of these rules because each situation might be a little different. This is why we end up with so many freakin rules in our legal system in general I suppose.

I would want pricing changes to be a member vote and require a quorum, but for new memberships I'd rather see a "if there is no objection then in 7 days this person becomes a member" maybe followed by a grace period for the "you aren't going to be a dumbass and poke your eyes out" before 24/7 access.

I guess I'm not seeing how a single rule can cover both situations. I guess those two things aren't what we are discussing though (when we get into specifics). We are still discussing how those two rules might get voted on at a meeting....

Here's my thought.... A certain number of supporters of a proposal (4?) should come together before something can be voted on (to weed out the frivolous topics) and 25% of the membership should be required as a quorum.

[Scott Bailey]

I think setting of dues is a board decision with member advice.  I believe this board has HSL's financial best interests at heart as well as a better grasp on how to remain fully funded.  And I don't trust a mob with money.  

I hope HSL learns to self-govern with few rules, I generally find they get in the way of action.  But I do understand the need for order: if HSL is too disorderly, I--and others--are better off staying at our home workshops.

Regarding voting on things in person, I'm about as ill as I can be and remain vertical.  And that remaining vertical thing is iffy.  I will be skipping HYH in favor of bed.  I'll catch the next one.

SB