Talk:Sudo room/Governance Structure
Leave a thought or message - Wrought (sign it with ~~~~)
Rather than being constituted of the entire Sudo Room body (whatever that means), the initiation of a project, activity, or decision process should begin its formality with a minimum of three Sudo Agents. Other projects and activities are of course not precluded from taking place within the boundaries of space and time in which Sudo Room emerges, but the formal Senate process begins at this originary moment, at this meeting of three collaborative minds. Eddankatz
- To me, for a group of this size (even projected into the future), it is reasonable to allow individuals to make proposals to be decided on by the group. Further, the scope of proposals that would be pertinent to this group is restricted to the critical aspects of maintaining a hackerspace, rather than projects or activities in general. Of course, there are some projects and activities that require the group to come together and make decisions. Wrought 08:12, 9 July 2012 (CEST)
- For the very rationale employed by Wrought above, the necessity of having individuals present proposals to be decided on by the entire group for it to be an activity or project done within sudo room is an unnecessary obstacle preventing the flexibility of initiative by individuals who want to work together. Additionally, the value of working together and collaboratively as a fundamental value of sudo room activities means that individuals doing projects on their own without others should not necessarily be considered a sudo room activity. In order to avoid any such activity constituting a sudo room activity, it would require that individual to present this project to the entire body, forcing the entire body to get bogged down by every project that an individual proposes to the group. Rather than restricting the involvement of the entire body to only those aspects critical to maintaining a hackerspace, the reservation expressed by Wrought above has the exact opposite effect of placing pervasive bureaucracy in the way of progress in creative and innovative endeavors. Eddankatz 20:02 29 July, 2012 (PDT)
Timely Process for Making Suggestions
The Alternative Options presented by Matt were moved to another page because they were submitted less than 24 hours before the meeting in which the governance structure was going to take place, and without any email or other notice sent to other participants. Participants in the meeting were asked to read this proposed alternative text on the spot and initiated as the discussion rather than the text that was discussed by the whole body for two weeks. Due to irrelevance of the majority of the proposal to the particular task of creating a process by which the by-laws could be agreed upon, discussion then returned to the original proposal of the whole body. This alternative text has then been moved to the additional page created in order to avoid further confusion in the discussion about governance. It has also been moved in order to consistently support a practice of fair notice for participants in discussion, and to eliminate special and unique privileges for facilitators of a meeting as to the agenda agreed upon for discussion.