Proposed change to e-NABLE's Loomio voting process
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.
Modification to Loomio voting process for e-NABLE proposals
proposal by Jeremy Simon Closed Fri 11 Sep 2020 2:02PM
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.
Results
| Results | Option | Votes | % of votes cast | % of eligible voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree | 23 | 96 | 14 |    | |
| Abstain | 1 | 4 | 1 | ||
| Disagree | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Block | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 140 | 85 |            |
24 of 164 votes cast (14% participation)
Everton Lins
Fri 4 Sep 2020 2:45PM
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.
Ken Bice
Fri 4 Sep 2020 2:45PM
In what space should proposals be posted on the hub? Do we create a separate one?
BenFri 4 Sep 2020 2:45PM
Discussions have been very helpful for me in shaping proposals and collaborating with the community.
WayneFri 4 Sep 2020 2:45PM
A discussion before any decision is just a good practice.
Will McCaffreyFri 4 Sep 2020 2:45PM
This is very fair.
MagiFri 4 Sep 2020 2:45PM
This sounds very fair and reasonable
Rich BFri 4 Sep 2020 2:45PM
This will provide a review process by piers.
Michael BowmanFri 4 Sep 2020 3:34PM
Could someone give an example of a situation where an expedited voting process would be appropriate?
Jon Schull ·Fri 28 Aug 2020 7:16PM
I think there should also be a minimum duration for voting as well (a week)?
a. We might also like to have some way of dealing with important cases for when (1 week+1 week) is too burdensome.
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.