2016/03/03 Meeting structure team on decision making

Present: Joachim Thome, Janina Abels, Douglas Webb

Notaries: Joachim Thome, Janina Abels, Douglas Webb

Location: Skype

[Meeting begins: 19:05]

link to the original notes: https://pad.riseup.net/p/7ZvzRfHwZceQ

Outcomes

We want to implement the still new and modifable systemic concensus method through leading by example: We will firstly master using it inside the Structure Team. Then we will apply it on more and more organization-wide issues and encourage people to come up with questions. By the time this works well other teams will see the benefits and also start using the system.

Whenever other groups approach us we will help them get their questions up on business.konsensieren.eu.
The required 3-people backing rule is definitely softened, if not obsolete. This will be addressed in an internal systemic consensus on the question "How do we get more people to ask their questions using systemic consensus?"
The new idea of rolling resistance is added to our approaches on how to use business.konsensieren.eu creatively and we will at some point figure out how to use it effectively.
The listed questions below will be used as training consensus inside the Structure Team in the days to come.
Every active member is encouraged to edit the Wiki as they see fit, since changes can always be undone and work on the content is definitely needed. If changes get changed back and consent doesn't seem to be reached, the issue will be put up for a SysCon.

Expectations

JA: I expect us to clarify our approach on decision making in yunity, i personally hope to regain a more secure feeling concerning where we're at with decision making atm and i'm looking forward to being (or rather feeling like being) on the same page with the rest of the syscon-subunit in structure again!

JT: Clarifying some questions to put them up for decision making.

DW: I expect to understand everyones opinions and know what to work on next.

Questions

How can we address medium-weight questions in an appropriate way?
How can we reevaluate finished syscons and pinpoint unclarities or mistakes made by participants?
How do we incorporate infomation gained from reevaluations?
How do we communicate that wiki pages are up to date...or are not?
What are our specific core values as the structure group ?
How do we get more people to ask their questions using systemic consensus?

Minutes

JT: The ability to make faster decisions is important, but emphasis should be on getting really familiar with systemic consensus.

DW: We currently make decisions via autonomous personal decisions, consent (unanimous positive agreement between all participants in a group) and systemic consensus.

JA: Perhaps we can answer "How can we address medium-weight questions in an appropriate way?" using systemic consensus.

JT: For wiki edits we can come up with a smarter solution because if not it would just be dragged out. We could mirror every site where we implement major changes and link the versions to each other so that we can switch between versions until we have decided wich one is better and will be used.

DW: We can use the 'space' function on the wiki so that what we do is not visible to the public before we want it to. Individuals can rewrite whole pages on their own if they want, but should accept that they won't necessarily be accepted.

JA: There was a '10' in the slogan vote which won - is it useful to make a real, in-detailed users guide for systemic consensus (e.g. 'Is it ok to make a 10?', 'What does a '10' even mean?', etc, etc)

JT: Tactical voting - someone can use '0' for their preferred option and give '10' to all the others. This stems from plurality voting mentality. However, this works against the interest of the voters who do this because if their '0'-resistance option fails, their '10's show no preference for their second option.

JA: Someone could have done this in the Slogan vote, as only one option has no '10'.

DW: Either way, we probably don't need to worry about tactical voting in SysCon, because in big groups it doesn't make a big difference and in smaller groups it is less likely to happen.

JT: Ditch 3 people backing , refine it with 1 person of structure team to a good question and go.

JA: So the refinement of questions just doesn't take place on trello anymore but instead will be in the structure channel on slack?

JT: Basically yes. Or even in PMs. Because we are the ones initiating syscons anyways the questions have to go through us and will be reviewed and in the end essentially backed by the one who puts it up.

DW: I don't feel comfortable with questions not being backed when it comes to organization-wide decisions, and i don't think that the backing rule is what keeps people from bringing up questions anyways. I think it's more about a lack of communication and awareness for questions.

JA: True, nobody really uses the trello board, including me...

JT: I never said the backing was the only inhibitor, but one of many, and also one that could be easily dropped. I think the system is stable the way it is and we just need more data to base our next steps on. If people show initiative towards initiating a syscon they should receive all the support we can give to them!

DW: I would like to keep the two person backing: whilst not making a point of it at all and engaging people directly to bring their questions forward. Otherwise, happy to have a Structure team SysCon on the question 'How do we get more people to ask their questions using Systemic consensus?'.

JA: Are we talking about all questions imaginable or just organization-wide ones here?

JT: Whatever people can come up with. I'm not a fan of advertising, but if other groups approach us i'm happy to help them get their teamwide question on konsensieren.eu, too.

DW: Yes, we should lead by example. Although i'd be willing to keep an eye on the other channels and have a look if questions fit for syscon are coming up.

JT: What are our specific values as the structure group?

DW: Figuering that out would definitely be good and maybe other groups shoudl/could do that, too. Having a good method to solve questions like this is something from which the whole organization could profit!

DW: We are kind of digressing atm, should we come back to the questions on top..?

JT: I'd actually prefer to put those up for syscons, since i think they are quite fit for us to practice on.

JA: Agrees.

DW: Agrees.

JT: For wiki editing i think everyone should edit as wildly as they want because we can always change back and if we can't come to a conclusion we can initiate a full syscon to finally resolve hanging issues.

JT: Doug's rolling resistance method looks as if it could be useful for something but i don't quite see for what exactly at the moment.

JA: To me it's more a formalized discussion than a decision making tool. When would the decision be final when there's no set timeframe?

DW: Well we decide on when it's final.

DW: Proposal for wiki-ing: autonomous decision, conversational consent then full SysCon (3 days for each phases)

Feedback

JA: We had a nice productive atmosphere and i think we are on the same page again. We will have lots of team-wide syscons coming up which is great because i totally see that we need the practice. I think we got our focus back and know how to proceed in the days and weeks to come.

JT: I'm happy that i could explain in-depth why i have newfound problems with the backing and that it's most important for me to get people to actually use the new system so that we can gather data, because experience is always better than theorization. So let's eliminate everything that could possible hinder people in participating and initiating syscons!

DW: I'm glad that i was able to present the rolling resistance even though we'll maybe not use it immediately. It was good to hear your voices and i'm happy about our progress, because i really think that we do make progress!

[Meeting ends: 21:20]

Personal notes

JT notes: practice makes confidence

testing instead of overthinking too much

speed comes from practice

offline, online, hybrid, rolling...other ideas and how we document them (advantaages,disadvantages > optimal use)

values of structure group as foundation: empowerment , collaboration , service , altruism ?

experience over opinion , hard data over experience .

Wiki mirror pages for sugguestions similar to git

PE comments while stopping by: We should have some sort of criteria on what we want from the perspective of Yunity. Various aims/goals, values and future plans for the platform should also be clearly noted down before we start a discussion on the licensing topic.

Browser not supported