adinfinitum
/
hackerspace-blueprint
mirror of https://codeberg.org/tqt/hackerspace-blueprint.git
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Update decision.md

pull/2/head
ddffddff 2014-05-06 22:11:41 +02:00
parent 9e48603c54
commit c65234d17c
1 changed files with 15 additions and 11 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

26
order/decision.md
View File

@ -3,24 +3,28 @@
For each layer there is a specific decision making model. This page describes them.
## Core Group
* the decision making model can be decided at runtime by the current board. The board is supposed to be a group that is sync'ed so the decision making process should be a natural flow. The below is outlined as a backup in case a decision can not be made.
The decision making model can be decided at runtime by the current board. The board is supposed to be a group that is sync'ed so the decision making process should be a natural flow. The below is outlined as a backup in case a decision can not be made.
* voting with a 2/3 majority.
* therefore the board must consist of an uneven amount of members: 3, 5, 7, ...
## Members group
* When a conflict/problem can not be resolved between individuals or when it impacts the group, a decision is required by the group. Below outlines the decision making model to be used by this group.
*
### Timeline:
week 0: the point is put on the agenda of the weekly meeting and is announced on the mailinglist. This needs to be at least 3 days in advance.
week 1: the point is discussed in group and requires a 100% consensus to reach a group decision. The motivation for striving for consensus is because consensus comes with characterics that benefits the hackerspace:
## Members group
When a conflict/problem can not be resolved between individuals or when it impacts the group, a decision is required by the group. Below outlines the decision making model to be used by this group.
##### week 0:
the point is put on the agenda of the weekly meeting and is announced on the mailinglist. This needs to be at least 3 days in advance.
##### week 1:
the point is discussed in group and requires a 100% consensus to reach a group decision. The motivation for striving for consensus is because consensus comes with characterics that benefits the hackerspace:
* encourages discussion
* forced to listen to apposing ideas that can give new insights
* they can bring smarter compromises
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus
The required 100% consensus also means that a very small minority can block a decision. That is a desired feature but it comes with a responsibility. When a small minority or even an individual feels very strongly that a proposed decision is not correct they have the option to block the decision. This does not block the decision but buys him 1 week of time. During that week the minority has the task to convince fellow members of their viewpoint.
week 2: the point is discussed again but now a rough consensus of %80 is applied to reach a decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus). If the small minority of last week was not able to convince enough fellow members the decision will be passed with rough consensus of %80. When their viewpoint make enough sense to fellow members, critical mass must be found to reach a new compromise. All members joining the discussion must strive to reach the rough consensus, to build the compromise. Not doing so is not being excellent.
week 3: when all has failed, or the problem is so controversial but a decision is required the below point system will be used to reach a decision.
The required 100% consensus also means that a very small minority can block a decision. That is a desired feature but it comes with a responsibility. When a small minority or even an individual feels very strongly that a proposed decision is not correct they have the option to block a decision. This does not stop a decision but gives the opposers 1 week of time. During that week the minority has the task to convince fellow members of their viewpoint.
##### week 2:
the point is discussed again but now a rough consensus of %80 is applied to reach a decision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus). If the small minority of last week was not able to convince enough fellow members the decision will be passed with rough consensus of %80. When their viewpoint make enough sense to fellow members, critical mass must be found to reach a new compromise. All members joining the discussion must strive to reach the rough consensus, to build the compromise. Not doing so is not being excellent.
##### week 3:
when all has failed, or the problem is to controversial, but a decision is still required the below point system will be used to reach a decision.
### Point system