This one isn’t on you Gordon.
There’s something missing in the governance process.
I’ve already talked to Justin about this and we are talking through ideas on how to fix.
My chief concern is why it seems none of the Council members were reached out to until after the vote. Naively, I would hope the elected reps would be where concerned community members are reaching out. That doesn’t seem to be happening. Or if it is happening, I’m not aware of it.
We as a community need to fix that. We have to find a way to publish Council sentiment when we have consensus before the official vote, so the community can react to the consensus establishment and reached out to in a timely manner, so Council members can factor in concerns.
if anyone has been paying attention to the meetings, I’ve been trying to introduce the concept of “sense of the Council” as non-binding vote as a new additional part of the census process for things I’m bringing forward. We probably need to go further with my experiment on that, and publish “sense of the Council” votes outside of the meeting logs, in more public places when those non-binding votes are unanimous. It would be better for all of us, if the impulse to advocate for additional consideration of a concern was being directed at Council members, before the binding votes. Council has some work to do process refinement to encourage that very reasonable sort of constituent advocacy. It’s a reasonable impulse, but doing it after the official votes isn’t timely. So we have some work to do here to ensure reach out is happening prior to the binding votes.
I want to be very clear, I don’t see what is being asked for for clarification in the ticket now as being unreasonable. But I am concerned that its happening after the vote and not before. I want to make sure we do what we can to fix that.