User:OneKarma/Forum/Functions

To form a more perfect mode of human governance, there must be established a forum to which all persons may apply for announcements, reviews, proposals, discussions, and voting.

Premise

The Transparency document states that:

The Facilitator's Working Group is dedicated to protecting the collective thinking and consensus decision-making process to ensure maximum inclusivity in all OccupyBoston decisions. Our work may include facilitating meetings, assessing and improving the consensus process and the conduct of meetings, documenting the processes being used by Occupy Boston, training of facilitators ,and making proposals to the General Assembly of Occupy Boston regarding improved processing of proposal and decision making.

If the Facilitator's WG intends 'to ensure maximum inclusivity in all OB decisions', why has there not been a move to host the GA online, where a much larger population has access? Why should physical attendance be required of anyone? Until there is a properly defined and logged process, there cannot be any true consensus.

Forum Requirements

We must create a forum maximizing the ease of participation. This will involve:

1. 'Citizenship' for security purposes (no voting twice, nor voting in place of another, etc)
2. Continuous GA cycles to avoid time restraints (addresses individual schedule and/or transportation issues)
   
   • Proposals can be 'hung,' discussed, edited, 're-hung,' and voted upon
     
   • Establishment of quorum only when minimum percentage (to be determined) of possible votes are cast
3. Fully transparent and documented
   • Short-form summaries of discussions/events, supported by long-form documentation

(Weekly?) Cycle

1. Day 1 (Sunday?), 00:00 am - GA Opens
2. Results of last voting are posted
   • PASSED proposals implemented immediately
   • DENIED proposals are recorded
   • UNDECIDED proposals placed under Review
3. Proposals from previous week are posted in vote-space
   
   • An individual vote may be updated at any time within the cycle
     
4. New proposals may be hung for discussion
   • Discussion is open for duration of week
5. Blocks are discussed and voted upon
   • Positive - Block is justified (Needs 10% of potential)
     
   • Negative - Block is not justified (proposal returns to quorum to be voted upon, with particular block negated)

Voting

Vote choices may be determined per proposal, but the general guidelines are:

1. Positive - vote to Ratify as-is (needs 90% of potential)
   
2. Negative - vote to Deny
   
   • Un-Clarified negative
     
   • Needs minor changes (changes required involve no more than language/clarity - suggest changes?)
     
   • Needs major changes (changes required involve functional aspects of the proposal - suggest changes?)
     
   • Block - the proposal is not sound/does not support the common good
     
3. Neutral
   
   • Null - prefer not to choose
     
   • Absent - vote not cast (default)

Case Results

Case percentages may be altered per individual proposal (or per level of proposal: global, regional, working group, etc), but the general guidelines are:

PASS Cases

Proposal accepted as-is; to be implemented at the start of the next GA cycle

• [at least 99.1% votes Positive] (maximum Blocks: 9 in 1,000)
• [ZERO Blocks] AND [at least 90.0% votes Positive] (max Blocks: zero)

DENY Cases

Prop cannot be edited; must be hung entirely anew if it is to be presented again. (Other consequences?)

• [at least 2.0% votes Block] (max Positive: 98.0%)
• [at least 35.0% votes Neutral] (max Positive: 65.0%)
• [at least 30.0% votes Negative] (max Positive: 70.0%)

UNDECIDED Cases

Prop can be presented again but must be amended

• [else]

Review Process

1. Review and vote on Blocks:
   • Any Block receiving at least 10.0% votes Supportive leads to denial of prop.
     
2. Review Undecided cases

---

Based on: Prop - Host GA Online at wikispaces