As a followup of the recent discussions regarding the SecureDrop name and logo and the liberapay fundraiser, here is a draft to explain key differences and hopefully clarify potential misunderstandings:
The SecureDrop Community is a non-incorporated collective of individuals contributing to SecureDrop and the Freedom of the Press Foundation is the registered non-profit with paid staff to develop SecureDrop. The SecureDrop Community and FPF employees work together but are organized differently. In the SecureDrop Community, projects are discussed in public and decision making is based on consensus (or, if someone asks, a vote). All resources used, produced and referenced at SecureDrop.club:
Personally, I see vote as the worst way to make a decision. The best interesting part of a vote is the preceding deliberation. I would propose consensus, or weak consensus (i.e. no veto). It is not dramatically prone to blockage: if someone is becoming a blocker and play with that, charge him to make a new (approved with consensus) suggestion in reasonable time, or ignore him.
it might not resolve concurrence between the expenses, since there are discussed separately;
it is based on individual initiative, which doesn’t include (or doesn’t help inclusion) of people which will consider themselves as “non-legitimate”.
I would propose to add some periodical (every 3-4 months?) behavior like that:
the amount of money is announced (even if the goal isn’t to spend it all, knowing the amount helps to dream (or desperate ))
everyone is invited to add one or more expense option (qualitative, not quantitative) in a pool;
once the pool is defined, everyone is invited to propose and advocates for one or more expense from the expenses pool (the most precisely, with quantifier);
people deliberates until according.
I think it can be a process more inclusive, and giving more ideas of the budgetary situation to the greatest group of interested people.
Vote only does not work either, I don’t have to convince you since you’re opposed to it already. But it is extremely useful as a last resort to avoid the scenario above. In other words, the phrase you quoted should be reworded, for clarity, as:
decision making is based on consensus (however, if someone disagrees and their voice cannot be heard, they have the right to call for a vote as a last resort)
Thanks for this, @dachary! That’s a great start, and I think we should continue the conversation about FPF’s role in SecureDrop. It might make sense at some point to come together for a governance meeting to discuss specifics like technical decision-making.
One request for clarification: the Twitter/FB split seems a bit arbitrary. I think it would make the most sense for FPF to run the FB page (it’s literally promoting an FPF fundraiser right now, for example), is there a reason that we went down this route? If not I suggest consolidating SecureDrop social media accounts (which might include Mastodon in future) under FPF.
That’s actually funny because… I was trying to make a joke, incorrectly assuming there was no SecureDrop Facebook page and pointing it to the RMS explanation for boycotting Facebook. But since there appears to be a SecureDrop facebook page after all, I’ll move that back to this being part of the things FPF decides on
I would propose consensus, or weak consensus (i.e. no veto). It is not dramatically prone to blockage: if someone is becoming a blocker and play with that, charge him to make a new (approved with consensus) suggestion in reasonable time, or ignore him.
))
And my request for a vote was dismissed because (again, I’m serious): it was not necessary. It was humiliating and frustrating: my only option was to walk away which I did.