Bylaws revision: Clarity on proposals
Nathan Schneider PublicSeen by 49Based 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.
Bylaws revision: Clarify proposal process
proposal by Nathan Schneider Closed Tue 10 Jul 2018 3:02AM
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 | Votes | % of votes cast | % of eligible voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree | 19 | 95 | 19 |            | |
| Abstain | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Disagree | 1 | 5 | 1 |  | |
| Block | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Not voted | 80 | 80 |                  |
I'm grateful for the extensive discussion in the Working Group that led to this decision. Thanks, friends!
Makes sense to me
I'm agreeing because all changes are improvements. But I really don't like Bylaws changes without a requirement of a quorum of participation.
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.
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!
Looks good to me, reads much better especially with the wording about blocks :)
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.
I agree that I'm not sure that the actual procedure is right, but this proposal is merely an attempt to clarify the meaning of the existing language. While the percentage might be more familiar, we ended up agreeing that using proportions would be a clearer way to express how to translate the Loomio data into relevant outcomes.
Given that Loomio shows votes in whole numbers and only percentages for participation multiplier language requires less calculation on part of the voter and it is clear now once a proposal has reached a pass threshold whether a block is employed or not. If this section was ratified ever again we could push for a numerical comment like (3X) or ration (3:1) next to "3 times" to further clarify the formula.
Well, my issue is that there is an unintended change on the procedure. (A percentage change from 95% to ~90%) I understand that this is an effort to bring concise and clear language to the Bylaws and since I was not able to put this issue during drafting I will put it now as a comment and let others decide. (If I hadn't abstained I would have blocked on this)
By and large the percentages are unchanged. A 90% (9X/ 9:1) was and still is the threshold/margin for proposal that doesn't amend the bylaws to pass where a block is employed.
Yeah the 95% threashold isn't possible in most whole number vote scenarios. It could have been represented as a 19:1 margin instead but in future ratifications it should be reduced to some whole number multiple.
There is also nominal percentage increase to pass a proposal with no Block from 50% (which is a tie) to +1 Agree to Disagree.
In my opinion, the actual issue lies not in the presence of percentages in the rules, but by the lack of percentages where the actual results are shown - on the pie chart.
On the below example, Agree should have 92% printed next to it, Abstain - 8%, the remaining two - 0%.
For me, percentages are much easier to read than the "times" ratios, and I would greatly enjoy having them on the pie chart as well, in order not to do multiplication in my head. But, both of these sound readable to me, and not everyone needs to be as mathematically-inclined as I am with the percents, so I can't generalize that everyone likes percentages as much as I do. At the same time, I assume that this would mean a request for Loomio to implement this functionality in their voting system, so, something we cannot control.
I agree with you, but unfortunately that's Loomio and we can't control it. I think, given the limitations of the software, it's better not to use percentages so the Loomio numbers don't wind up confusing people.
This would be a great thing to post to the Loomio Community - Product Development Loomio group as a suggested feature addition...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It seems that percentages will be added soon!
So this is great and will help on the percentage side but the old language was also vague on Blocks and and for how Abstain votes are counted. Would you be open to re-visiting as part of a deeper procedural dive forthcoming in the Governance Working group?
Sure - what exactly do you mean by "re-visiting"?
did you really that we are gold subscribers!! :)
@phoe After the dust settles the plan is to create a discussion thread in Governance WG to go over the current governance procedures and see how well they are currently working for the community with an eye towards how they will function as SC scales. Based on the feedback from the discussion then look to gain broad consensus on a proposal to ratify the Bylaws in a holistic manner.d
Okay, sounds good! I could participate in that. It's still somewhat unclear for me, but I am still new at the whole co-op idea.
The <blank> times more language is significantly less clear than what we have now.
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%)
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.