Consent outcomes

72 hours minimum timeframe for full online systemic consensus proposal forming and rating periods (total 144 hours)

From now on take recorded consent from the prospective voters before initiating full online systemic consensus. To be reevaluated 2016-03-11.

We want to prepare and give a presentation on Saturday and will announce it today. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1UEqTdt-IpdffmAPi_4DvFUJ8QEKbDQWvXgi3tqrpeCg/edit?usp=sharing

Minutes

DW: Starting (online) systemic consensuses. Problems: No agreed way of doing so, this disempowers people from being able to start them.

JT: Current situation: Someone in structure initiates, or set up if someone else has question. Not the worst case, because system still in testing by Structure team anyway. Already has 'safety nets' for collaborative decision making- 1) the syscon itself 2) communicating and documenting it via the Trello and wiki.

DW: Things start with individuals. What system do we use to 'boot up' systemic consensuses?

JT: What are aims and concerns.

DW: Aim for boot up process is to make it actually democratic. Main concern is that it's not democratic, no freedom of information on how to start (fail of activation and integration). Other concerns; bad questions asked, spamming people with decisions that don't warrant full systemic consensus (hyperactivity).

JT: The concerns are at the opposite poles, so its about getting a balance, for that never focus a problem on of the extremes alone but find its position between the poles.

DW: So in this case, one problem is hypoactivity and the other hyperactivity.

DW: Problem not hypo/hyperactivity: if there are no decisions to be made then hypoactivity is not a problem. If there are loads questions to be answered, similarly not a problem

JT: What then is the problem, if any?

DW: Questions not getting asked (by full systemic consensus) that should be, questions getting asked (by full systemic consensus) that shouldn't be.

JT: Who decides that, if not the people who are asked?

DW: Currently, you, I, Janina. Should be everyone.

JT: They can already, for example by voting for the zero solution and by proposing to ask other questions inside the sc.

DW: But initiating the systemic consensus in the first place, that's my question.

JT: Out current problem is hypoactivity and we should focus on rectifying that before concerning ourselves with hypothetical problems about hyperactivity

DW: I agree to limit speculation. However, We should focus on where we want to get first, then about where we are.

JT: We talked mostly about offline syscon, and the main problem with online is getting people involved.

JT: If anyone wants to make a sc they contact us (Structure team channel, Janina,Doug Joachim), we announce that (in the presentation on so) and we then find a good timeframe for the sc (which is intuitive)

DW: I think we should have 72 hours minimum timeframes for proposals and voting

JT: I was thinking the same.

DW: Propose we have recorded consent from three voters (people who consider themselves appropriate to vote on the question) for all online systemic consensuses. Introduced in two stages. 1) Structure team (Janina, Joachim, Doug, ?) facilitate and gently introduce recorded consent from three voters. 2) Anyone can initiate a full online systemic consensus with recorded consent from three voters. Would like to initiate stage two by end of Rotterdam (7 weeks from now).

JT: We can communicate better in the presentation that pro: sc builds trust (especially in the long run ) con: full sc is at the moment completly formalized a bit heavy for offline decision making. We can also communicate that if a decision is 'heavy' we have the time to do systemic consensus (heavy = hanging in the air for weeks or months, people get defensive, etc)

DW: Propose 3 topics X 10 minutes then stop. On Sunday.

JT: Important to diffuse properly: We (speakers) should leave immediately anteceding talk to the kitchen (for tea)

JT: https://business.konsensieren.eu is the enterprise version of konsensieren. Pro: active development, comments work, dates can be changed, etc. Con: German only.

DW: Realistically, we could use it as only a few, integrated non-German speakers in team (at present). Is a long term issue that needs to be addressed

JT: Will contact SK guys and see what they say to open-sourcing.

DW: Start talk and ask for all questions at the end.

[Meeting ends: 13:51]

yunity

2016-02-12 - Structure meeting

Consent outcomes

Minutes