search

scuttlebutt-eu / important-documents

https://scuttlebutt.eu/
7 stars 2 forks source link

[Draft] Add member removal process #21

Closed staltz closed 4 years ago

staltz commented 4 years ago

For issue #14. The phrasing I used is obviously up for edits and further clarification.

cblgh commented 4 years ago

@staltz nice :) perhaps we should mention the criteria for successful removal as well? i assume you intend for removal of the member to be passed if (1) everyone has voted, and (2) all of the votes are either w or y

in that vein, absentees should probably be defined somehow (does a vote fail if someone does not vote? or is that equivalent to a w vote?)

staltz commented 4 years ago

I think we need a document to describe our yw!? voting process, specially because it's so central to everything we do! That should address some of your questions. I do think that it's reasonable if a member doesn't answer within the deadline, to consider their vote as w. What is your opinion?

cblgh commented 4 years ago

yeah i think that's reasonable too, i think, as long as a majority (>=50%) of the consortium has actually voted. just to explicitly close off any weird situations where e.g. someone poses a vote at a busy time like the new year's week or w/e

is that reasonable?

elavoie commented 4 years ago

Perhaps I would simply add "in exceptional situations, when all other conflict resolution strategies have failed."

Powersource commented 4 years ago

It feels a bit much to me to need everyone to agree/don't mind (y/w) to remove a member. What if there are 100 people in the org, 98 people want someone gone, but 1 person is blocking the removal? Is that the part where we invoke the Membership split, which is essentially a majority vote? If so, (or maybe either way) I think it could be a good idea to include in the text how the Membership split plays into this.

Also agree with Erick that we should mention a conflict resolution strategy, even if we don't define that in this document.

Powersource commented 4 years ago

Or is this maybe where https://github.com/scuttlebutt-eu/important-documents/issues/16 comes in?

staltz commented 4 years ago

I'm hoping that as we scale and go beyond 30 members, we will completely refresh our processes (I think we kind of agreed that we would do that after 1 year?), so I'm just trying to provide a starting point that we can use for removal.

Powersource commented 4 years ago

Ok that makes sense. I'm leaning towards preferring just using a majority vote to start with though.

Also anyway, this PR atm is more lax than the

Be actively vouched for by at least 3 active members (see “Membership Split” for limit cases)

criteria, which kind of makes this pr superfluous in a way?

Powersource commented 4 years ago

Now that I've read https://github.com/scuttlebutt-eu/important-documents/pull/24 , I think this pr (#21) could probably be skipped.

elavoie commented 4 years ago

I would agree with @Powersource that the possibility of removing vouching at any time, as explained in #24, is a form of voting that can remove someone/some groups from the consortium. It thus supersedes the need for an explicit vote for removal.

It also provides an escalation mechanism without requiring a consensus-based process: When someone removes their vouching, this sends a signal of disagreement that the "unvouched" member can use to adapt their behaviour. This works without anyone having to do a formal "intervention" with that person, and without mobilizing the entire organization on a vote to threaten the person for removal. Yet, if anti-social behaviour is maintained, then the other members that will remove their vouching will create an escalation until actual removal.

I added a commit in #24 to add one sentence that clarifies that a vouch can be removed at any time: https://github.com/scuttlebutt-eu/important-documents/pull/24/commits/ce61d371d1ce8d45014e00333f0f525ed3b77ad6