View Topic

This is my very rough draft at coming up with a specific consensus system for Wintreath. It's mostly what we're already practicing, but I thought up a few changes that I think might help with record-keeping. I'm not saying this is a proposal, this is just what I came up with and I'm asking for input or help making it better

1) A proposal is posted to the forums
In the past, we've launched proposals on Discord, but I think it's important to start the process on the forums because we have Citizens who aren't on Discord. When a post is made in the governance forum it gets linked on the #governance Discord channel anyways.

A proposal doesn't have to be formal, it could be as simple as "Should we do this?", but the OP must contain all relevant information that Citizens should consider.

2) A period for objections/discussion starts
Usually this is a minimum of one day, but our draft FA policy specifies three days for proposals to open or close relations with other regions. If there are no objections at the end of the period, or if there's unanimous opinion toward an option, then that option will automatically be implemented by unanimous consent. If there is an objection or disagreement, the discussion should turn to addressing concerns raised, with the goal of coming up with a solution that as many people as possible can live with. If it is felt that the issue has been addressed but the objection remains, the process can proceed with a rough consensus. In the event of a rough consensus, the person who raised the objection will have the right to their objection included with the proposal along with their reasoning why they feel it has not been adequately addressed.

During this period, a summary of the discussion should be kept up-to-date on the forum topic, so Citizens across all of Wintreath's platforms can keep up with what's going on and be involved in the discussion. Citizens can also suggest changes to this summary during the discussion if they feel it isn't worded accurately.

3) A final call period (only when not implemented by unanimous consent)
At the end of all discussion (all concerns and objections have been addressed), there will be a final one-day period where the proposal, including modifications if there have been any, is put back up to see if there are any new concerns or objections (ones previously raised cannot be reopened). If there are new objections, repeat step 2 until there are no further objections raised.

Once all objections have been addressed and there is a consensus or rough consensus on the final proposal, the proposal will be implemented.

Since the draft was posted yesterday, Chanku posted a suggestion and asked some questions that I've posted here. The questions were concerning who would decide when there was consensus and whether non-Citizens could request permission to be included in discussions on specific proposals/matters. If you would like to weigh in on this or anything else about the draft, please feel free to. I will aim to post other relevant discussions about this as they happen.

Suggestions

• Chanku suggested replacing pass/passed with implement/implemented gave her the vibe of there being a vote. This was implemented into the draft.

Questions Raised

Chanku: Who determines if there is rough consensus? Is it the person who posted the proposal or some other person? What if there is a disagreement?

Wintermoot: Honestly, at least in the initial period, probably me, which is more or less what I've been doing anyways. At some point there probably does need to be a discussion of if there needs to be a new role, or we can discuss if we feel it's best that the OP handle it.

Chanku: What about non-citizens? If a person who has just joined has an idea to do X, should they necessarily have to obtain citizenship to propose it? What if there's someone who isn't necessarily a Citizen, but has relevant information on a particular matter or proposal being discussed? Do they have to obtain citizenship to participate?

Wintermoot: My preference would be that the discussion itself be limited to Citizens...it's not difficult to become a Citizen, and even if we make the proposed changes it won't be difficult to maintain. If someone has information in sort of a one-off capacity I suppose they could relay it or they could be made a guest. Several guests have access to this channel at the invitation of the RSS (you can see them in the member list coloured in yellow). But that's another process, too. I do think the governance forum is viewable to all, too.

Chanku: Fair enough. It's mostly just things I wanted to bring up and at least consider. At the very least I would include a note saying that an individual could request permission to participate in discussion on a specific proposal or matter.

Wintermoot: What would that process look like? Would there need to be a process to 'confirm' their access to the channel?

Chanku: Not entirely certain tbh. It's more-so just something I was thinking about.

This is my very rough draft at coming up with a specific consensus system for Wintreath. It's mostly what we're already practicing, but I thought up a few changes that I think might help with record-keeping. I'm not saying this is a proposal, this is just what I came up with and I'm asking for input or help making it better

1) A proposal is posted to the forums
In the past, we've launched proposals on Discord, but I think it's important to start the process on the forums because we have Citizens who aren't on Discord. When a post is made in the governance forum it gets linked on the #governance Discord channel anyways.

A proposal doesn't have to be formal, it could be as simple as "Should we do this?", but the OP must contain all relevant information that Citizens should consider.

2) A period for objections/discussion starts
Usually this is a minimum of one day, but our draft FA policy specifies three days for proposals to open or close relations with other regions. If there are no objections at the end of the period, or if there's unanimous opinion toward an option, then that option will automatically be implemented by unanimous consent. If there is an objection or disagreement, the discussion should turn to addressing concerns raised, with the goal of coming up with a solution that as many people as possible can live with. If it is felt that the issue has been addressed but the objection remains, the process can proceed with a rough consensus. In the event of a rough consensus, the person who raised the objection will have the right to their objection included with the proposal along with their reasoning why they feel it has not been adequately addressed.

During this period, a summary of the discussion should be kept up-to-date on the forum topic, so Citizens across all of Wintreath's platforms can keep up with what's going on and be involved in the discussion. Citizens can also suggest changes to this summary during the discussion if they feel it isn't worded accurately.

3) A final call period (only when not implemented by unanimous consent)
At the end of all discussion (all concerns and objections have been addressed), there will be a final one-day period where the proposal, including modifications if there have been any, is put back up to see if there are any new concerns or objections (ones previously raised cannot be reopened). If there are new objections, repeat step 2 until there are no further objections raised.

Once all objections have been addressed and there is a consensus or rough consensus on the final proposal, the proposal will be implemented.

So i aleardy want to make an proposal well There are the hangouts in the discord and i think there should be an history hangout 

It would be about history and would work as any other hangout and history intressted people join ans talk about history and enjoy their time and fun and share their knowlage to others thats what i imagine but it can be more also so i dont know if it gets accepted or not but if it actually gets accepted i dont know how the new hangout would go further 

Since the draft was posted yesterday, Chanku posted a suggestion and asked some questions that I've posted here. The questions were concerning who would decide when there was consensus and whether non-Citizens could request permission to be included in discussions on specific proposals/matters. If you would like to weigh in on this or anything else about the draft, please feel free to. I will aim to post other relevant discussions about this as they happen.

Suggestions

• Chanku suggested replacing pass/passed with implement/implemented gave her the vibe of there being a vote. This was implemented into the draft.

Questions Raised

Chanku: Who determines if there is rough consensus? Is it the person who posted the proposal or some other person? What if there is a disagreement?

Wintermoot: Honestly, at least in the initial period, probably me, which is more or less what I've been doing anyways. At some point there probably does need to be a discussion of if there needs to be a new role, or we can discuss if we feel it's best that the OP handle it.

Chanku: What about non-citizens? If a person who has just joined has an idea to do X, should they necessarily have to obtain citizenship to propose it? What if there's someone who isn't necessarily a Citizen, but has relevant information on a particular matter or proposal being discussed? Do they have to obtain citizenship to participate?

Wintermoot: My preference would be that the discussion itself be limited to Citizens...it's not difficult to become a Citizen, and even if we make the proposed changes it won't be difficult to maintain. If someone has information in sort of a one-off capacity I suppose they could relay it or they could be made a guest. Several guests have access to this channel at the invitation of the RSS (you can see them in the member list coloured in yellow). But that's another process, too. I do think the governance forum is viewable to all, too.

Chanku: Fair enough. It's mostly just things I wanted to bring up and at least consider. At the very least I would include a note saying that an individual could request permission to participate in discussion on a specific proposal or matter.

Wintermoot: What would that process look like? Would there need to be a process to 'confirm' their access to the channel?

Chanku: Not entirely certain tbh. It's more-so just something I was thinking about.

For who determines consensus, I think that it shouldn't be the one making the proposal, at least not them solely.

To request permission to join in a conversation is kinda unnecessary, they can just apply for citizenship. I think that if someone who is not a citizen wishes to engage in a discussion they can request an extension on the discussion so that consensus is not taken before they can become a citizen and weigh in.