New resolution to "pause" fedi membership #690

New Issue

2026-03-09T08:05:40Z

decentral1se commented

2026-03-09 08:05:40 +00:00

Some fedi members are inactive for some time. Large votes are stalled if we can not get a vote from them. We should come up with a way to "pause" a membership from "our side" if a fedi member is unresponsive so we can continue to make progress. They can always come back.

decentral1se added the fedi label 2026-03-09 08:05:40 +00:00

mayel referenced this issue

2026-03-09 08:49:57 +00:00

Voting rights and fedi individual members #689

fauno commented

2026-03-09 15:54:15 +00:00

how do we define inactivity?

for instance:

not having voted on last .... resolutions
not paying membership dues for .... months
not maintaining recipes properly

how do we define inactivity? for instance: * not having voted on last .... resolutions * not paying membership dues for .... months * not maintaining recipes properly

3wordchant commented

2026-03-10 17:49:44 +00:00

not having voted on last .... resolutions

not paying membership dues for .... months

Seems great. Cyberia has something similar:

voting members who fail to attend 2 regular Congresses without excuse are removed as voting members
https://wiki.cyberia.club/hypha/congress_and_the_board/bylaws

Although I vaguely remember Forest saying there was some problem with it in practice.

not maintaining recipes properly

Seems maybe like this should / would trigger offboarding as a maintainer, not necessarily federation member, to me personally.

> * not having voted on last .... resolutions > * not paying membership dues for .... months Seems great. [Cyberia](https://cyberia.club) has something similar: > voting members who fail to attend 2 regular Congresses without excuse are removed as voting members > https://wiki.cyberia.club/hypha/congress_and_the_board/bylaws Although I vaguely remember Forest saying there was some problem with it in practice. > not maintaining recipes properly Seems maybe like this should / would trigger offboarding as a maintainer, not necessarily federation member, to me personally.

ineiti commented

2026-03-22 14:54:54 +00:00

How are votes defined? If you say:

for the next 2 weeks
if the "yes" are more than the "no"

the inactive members are not a problem, no?

How are votes defined? If you say: * for the next 2 weeks * if the "yes" are more than the "no" the inactive members are not a problem, no?

decentral1se commented

2026-03-22 17:44:41 +00:00

How are votes defined?

https://docs.coopcloud.tech/federation/proposals/federation/#decision-making

the inactive members are not a problem, no?

From #690 (comment)

Some fedi members are inactive for some time. Large votes are stalled if we can not get a vote from them.

Stalled votes are a problem.

> How are votes defined? https://docs.coopcloud.tech/federation/proposals/federation/#decision-making > the inactive members are not a problem, no? From https://git.coopcloud.tech/toolshed/organising/issues/690#issue-5695 > Some fedi members are inactive for some time. Large votes are stalled if we can not get a vote from them. Stalled votes are a problem.

ineiti commented

2026-05-22 09:43:37 +00:00

Oups - time flies. I did read the #decision-making text, and I couldn't find anything with regards to how the voting outcome is decided! The only thing I found is that

Consensus voting: addressing any concerns.

But it doesn't say that you need a majority or anything like that. At least I cannot find it...

We could make a proposal that the deadline must be at least 4 weeks, and that at least 50% of the co-op cloud members, or 2/3 of the cast votes, must be in favour. Even though the Consensus voting can also be interpreted as 100% yes needed...

Oups - time flies. I did read the #decision-making text, and I couldn't find anything with regards to how the voting outcome is decided! The only thing I found is that > Consensus voting: addressing any concerns. But it doesn't say that you need a majority or anything like that. At least I cannot find it... We could make a proposal that the deadline must be at least 4 weeks, and that at least 50% of the co-op cloud members, or 2/3 of the cast votes, must be in favour. Even though the `Consensus voting` can also be interpreted as `100% yes needed`...

fauno commented

2026-05-22 16:08:43 +00:00

@ineiti it's here: https://docs.coopcloud.tech/federation/resolutions/passed/001/#types-of-proposals

fauno commented

2026-05-22 16:10:04 +00:00

(also according to some facilitators, consensus is not the same as voting until unanimity is reached, but that all objections have been heard)

ineiti commented

2026-05-22 20:43:14 +00:00

Thanks - now I understand: the The Code of Co-operation Proposal paragraph does not mention the voting numbers needed, while the Resolution 001 mentions the votes needed.

So of course some will say that it's "consensus voting" and all need to agree, while others will say that 50% of total federation members is enough :)

This should be resolved at least with:

update The Code of Co-operation Proposal with the text of Resolution 001

and optionally

a "Maximum Consensus" resolution to change the "Maximum Consensus" to 2/3 of cast vote in at least a month, or 50% of the total federation members...

Just my 2 cents :)

Resolution 001

Large - “Maximum Consensus ™”¶
Important decisions affecting the operation, direction, working conditions and finances of Co-op Cloud.
proposals must have a minimum deadline of 2 weeks from when they are proposed
Pass requirements:
more than 50% of total number of federation members 👍 votes
no 👎 votes

The Code of Co-operation Proposal

Large - "Maximum Consensus ™"¶
Important decisions affecting the operation, direction, working conditions and finances of Co-op Cloud.
Consensus voting: addressing any concerns.
Can be requested by any member of Co-op Cloud for any decision.
Input from every Co-op Cloud member.
Whoever proposes Large decisions is responsible for chasing up members for votes.
Votes can be in favour, against, abstain (stand aside) or block.
One member (individual or organisation) = 1 vote

Thanks - now I understand: the `The Code of Co-operation Proposal` paragraph does not mention the voting numbers needed, while the `Resolution 001` mentions the votes needed. So of course some will say that it's "consensus voting" and all need to agree, while others will say that 50% of total federation members is enough :) This should be resolved at least with: - update `The Code of Co-operation Proposal` with the text of `Resolution 001` and optionally - a "Maximum Consensus" resolution to change the "Maximum Consensus" to 2/3 of cast vote in at least a month, or 50% of the total federation members... Just my 2 cents :) # Resolution 001 Large - “Maximum Consensus ™”¶ Important decisions affecting the operation, direction, working conditions and finances of Co-op Cloud. proposals must have a minimum deadline of 2 weeks from when they are proposed Pass requirements: more than 50% of total number of federation members 👍 votes no 👎 votes # The Code of Co-operation Proposal Large - "Maximum Consensus ™"¶ Important decisions affecting the operation, direction, working conditions and finances of Co-op Cloud. Consensus voting: addressing any concerns. Can be requested by any member of Co-op Cloud for any decision. Input from every Co-op Cloud member. Whoever proposes Large decisions is responsible for chasing up members for votes. Votes can be in favour, against, abstain (stand aside) or block. One member (individual or organisation) = 1 vote

Sign in to join this conversation.

4 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: toolshed/organising#690