ESG Steering Committee Standard Operating Procedure

Meetings:

A meeting agenda will be posted at least 4 days before the meeting.
Decision issues (proposals to be voted on) will be clearly marked.

Anyone may attend a meeting, and all attendees are treated equally for
decision-making and planning.

Each meeting starts with choosing a minute taker and a person to hold
the meeting's "context" (see below).  Minutes are posted after the
meeting, including the new "open issues" to be discussed by the
community before the next meeting.

The purpose of the context holder is to manage the meta-discussion
issues: where the discussion is headed and how it is engaged in.
Their primary responsibilities are to ensure that all voices are
heard, limit the repetition of points in discussion, and bring people
back to the issue at hand or the agenda items as needed.  However,
they are not the Robert's rules chair of the discussion-- there is no
such role.

The taker of minutes and the holder of context may be the same person.

Decisions:

The motivating goals behind good decision-making policy in ESG are:

1. The goal of decision-making is to empower people, not limit them.

2. Decision-making input should be in proportion to the degree one is
affected by the outcome.

3. Good decisions can only be made in the context of all information
concerning those decisions (including resource allocation and other
constraints).

4. We value diversity of opinion.  The process should support the
concerns that underly dissent and minority positions.  For example,
consensus decisions value dissent completely, while majority rule does
so not at all.

5. When problems arise, the process should support addressing the
deepest cause, at the expense of quick patches, as these "solutions"
almost inevitably lead to more problems.

Decisions can be made very informally, but the general process
includes these steps:
1. Submit a proposal; decide if it affects the whole community
2. Achieve approval (make the decision)
3. Evaluate the results

Proposals:

Proposals can start with only a vague idea, but before getting
approved they must have the follow pieces:

1. The proposal must embue a single person with the head
responsibility for the proposed actions.  This could mean anything
from going to a store to chairing a committee to handle the rest of
the details.  The important thing is that the authority implicit in a
proposal rest in an individual.

2. A description of as much resource reallocation as will be
necessary.  It cannot just say, "This will require $200" if that $200
will have to come out of another endeavor funds.

3. A choice of voting method.  The author of the proposal may choose
one of the following options, described under "Approval" below.
  * Voting, with 75% approval
  * Proportional Response
  * Vote Counting over time

4. Conditions for the time, manner, and criteria upon which the
proposal will be evaluated.

A proposal cannot demand compliance.  For example, the piano "rules of
use" proposal will probably take the form of a set of recommendations
and a "stimulus and response" clause: if the recommendations are not
followed, the piano will be moved.

A proposal must be accepted for consideration on with a 25% vote.

If a proposal will effect the whole community, it should be presented
as an "open issue" and discussed at the next meeting.

Approval:

Approval is made by the open membership of the meeting in which a
decision is made.  There are no proxy votes or votes by
representation.  This is to allow the decision to come out of the
meeting discussion.  Absentee voters cannot change their opinions.

Quorum for making a decision is one greater than the number of people
who express interest in making a decision but cannot attend the
meeting.  People can express interest by signing a card in the CICDO
box.

Methods of achieving approval:

  1. Simple Voting

  A proposal can be approved with 75% aye's in a vote.

  2. Proportional Response

  The proposal will be put into effect, and get the resources it
  needs, in proportion to the percentage of votes it gets.

  3. Vote Counting over time

  A minority position can win approval by collecting a ``consensus
  equivalent in votes'' over time.  The total number of required votes
  is determined when the proposal is accepted, and will generally
  equal the number of decision-makers in the ESG community.  The
  proposal can be presented once each semester, voted on, and
  approving votes will be added to the previous total until the
  proposal is approved or dropped.  The same person can be counted
  multiple times, once each semester.

All of these voting methods should be modified in each case by an
understanding of the people who are most affected by the outcome.

The goal of these voting methods is to balance efficiency with valuing
diversity.  Strong proposals can be put into effect, both by the
majority and the minority.  However, the minority's proposals are in
various ways diminished in effect: either by effecting some people and
not others (proportional voting input), only being put partially into
effect (proportional response), or only being in effect sometimes but
not always (vote counting).

Evaluation:

Keeping track of the effects of proposals over time is essential, and
reevaluation of the motivations behind a proposal will stop faulty
policies from getting the benefit of being the ``status quo''.

A repository of past proposals and evaluation reports should be set up
for future reference.