3/5 works for me, so far. I'm generally for lower supermajority thresholds.
This concerns me for the same reasons that a "2 out of 5 majority" rule would: It gives the minority more power over than a majority and is undemocratic.
Are there types of policy changes specifically that you would want a super majority for? (Say, policies about purchasing, or policies about banning people, etc.) I think I could see certain kinds of policies that would be better suited for requiring a super-majority, but to apply it to everything is something I'm very much opposed to.
Well, here's a thought. Maybe, in a room with only 5 voters, if you can't convince at least one of those 2 people to at least come to a compromise that allows them to feel okay about voting for your proposal... mmmmmayyyybe your proposal is off base.
The obvious response is, maybe if three people are for something and two people are not, the desires of two people should not outweigh the desires of three people.
Naomi, I stated my concerns and offered an avenue for compromise. Can you knock off with the "mmmmmayyyybe" condescension?
@asweigart I didn't think I was being condescending, sorry. FWIW I mmmmmayyyybe 2 hours of sleep last night and have a hard time modulating my own tone when sleep deprived.
At any rate: You stated your concerns and I offered a very different avenue of discussion about this topic; I wasn't trying to dismiss your arguments. I was in the middle of writing the following reply:
@asweigart I quite literally mean ALL of the written policy in "bureaucracy" should fall under the 4/5s rule.
I don't think policy changes should be taken lightly. I think 3/5's decisions are well suited for hasty decisions of the "bike shedding" variety:
- "what color CAT-5 cables do we want?"
- "who should take the meaningless title of Blah to appease the nonprofit overlords?"
- "how many minutes should we spend discussing issues that fit Category Q?"
The change of writing dictating the way people should interact at Noisebridge really should be treated with greater gravity.
Besides: do you really expect that we're going to be making SO many policy decisions that we're going to wish we could go faster?! I don't want to live in that world.
To clarify my "maybe the proposal is off base" argument:
The noisebridge board, as persons elected by the Noisebridge membership, can be expected to represent the attitudes and interests of the membership in general.
If 2 of these representatives (a pretty significant percentage of the board at 40%) disagree strongly enough with a policy proposal that they would vote against it, and neither of them can be convinced by any of those 3 positive-voters to budge an inch... then I believe it should be considered that the proposal does not well represent a best way forward for Noisebridge, and is probably inferior to another proposal that could be implemented instead with a little more discussion.
And if we really are such an intransigent bunch that we believe we can't convince each other to shift a little on our positions, compromise, etc, then maybe we don't belong together on a board. Seriously.
I don't see much of a difference between 3/5 or 4/5. It's a small group, and I think, if we take a breather from the craziness of the mailing list and focus on our little cabal, I think we're more than capable of reaching a decision with 4/5 people, if enough discussion is had.
I like expediency, but I also like thoroughness. After 24 hours of thought I don't think that 4/5 will change either of those things drastically enough to matter. So I'll +1 this.
A 3 out of 5 majority is great for expediency, but expediency is not a positive asset when deciding on policy changes in a small organization in which you hope not to change policy very often.
Written policy would include everything currently found in the bureaucracy repo except for "banned".