Difference between revisions of "Archive:2007-08-08/log"
m (Adding spiffy navigation template.))
|Line 3,573:||Line 3,573:|
Log file closed at: 8/9/07 12:15:22 AM
Log file closed at: 8/9/07 12:15:22 AM
Revision as of 23:18, 12 October 2007
Log file opened at: 8/8/07 5:01:38 PM
- gavinbaker (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: meeting in 15 | courtesy ping: Ax3 conley danjared jli mark007 paulproteus poningru TimHwang
- Scudmissile (n=Scudmiss@184.108.40.206) has joined channel #freeculture
K`Tetch: not me??? :-(
gavinbaker: K`Tetch: you didn't need one ;)
K`Tetch: not needing to, but doing it anyway, is what courtesy is all about, isn't it?
- brylie (n=brylie@CPE-75-81-97-106.kc.res.rr.com) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: K`Tetch: what can i say, americans just aren't as courteous...
K`Tetch: so i've noticed
Scudmissile is AFK for the moment
gavinbaker: let's drink until our hearts stop.
gavinbaker: karen and nelson are coming, but will be a little late
gavinbaker: what's the sense of people here: start now, or wait?
K`Tetch: nelson will be late? ha ha!
K`Tetch: sorry, couldn't resist
Scudmissile has returned!
gavinbaker: ho Scudmissile
gavinbaker: here's the agenda for tonight: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-08
K`Tetch: todays meeting, is to set up a time for the meeting for organising the next meeting
gavinbaker: yes! it's a meta-meta-meeting
gavinbaker: first on the agenda: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_1.4._Board_Vacancies
- skyfaller (email@example.com) has joined channel #freeculture
K`Tetch: ha ha!
- mllerustad (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined channel #freeculture
skyfaller: did I miss a funny?
Scudmissil: just mocking you becuase you were late, skyfaller
- oday (email@example.com) has joined channel #freeculture
skyfaller: you're all meanies
skyfaller: blue meanies
gavinbaker: ok, log from yesterday is now up (and readably-formatted) http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-07/log
gavinbaker: starting now
gavinbaker: Section 1.4. Board Vacancies
gavinbaker: "Resignation from the Board must be in writing and received by all Board members. All members of the Organization must be notified within two weeks of any resignations from the board. A Board member may be removed for other reasons by a three-fourths vote of the remaining directors.
gavinbaker: When a vacancy on the Board exists, nominations for new members may be received from present Board members and individual university chapters."
gavinbaker: ok, passive voice is bad
gavinbaker: what does it mean for a resignation to be 'received' by the other board members?
gavinbaker: um, and what is a 'member of the Organization'?
gavinbaker: and why is there a 2 week window for notification? it takes 2 weeks to send an email?
gavinbaker: the part about removing a board member should be scrapped and replaced with removal for cause, as previously agreed
gavinbaker: as for the last sentence, i think we never decided how to do nominations in the first place, so we should bundle this with that and deal with it later
gavinbaker: --or did we decide that, i don't recall
mllerustad: gavinbaker: I think that was one of the things we decided... It's members of chapters (as defined by the chapter) and current board members that nominate.
mllerustad: At least, it's in my notes as a Resolved, and I added it to the RC 2.
gavinbaker: mllerustad: can you link/paste the language?
mllerustad: "Members of any chapter (as defined by the chapter) and current members of the board of directors can nominate themselves or other eligible individuals for board positions."
- grahl_ (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: ho grahl_
gavinbaker: mllerustad: so let's parallel that language for vacancies?
gavinbaker pokes skyfaller
grahl_: gavinbaker: arrr
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Sounds good.
mllerustad: Or even just say, "through the same process as for regular elections" or some sort.
- Fear_of_C (email@example.com) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: y0 Fear_of_C
gavinbaker: so somebody write something :D
Fear_of_C: sorry I couldn't make it earlier
mllerustad: Fear_of_C: It's okay :) I was late too.
skyfaller: gavinbaker: sure, parallel it...
mllerustad: Resolved: "If a board member resigns, nominations and elections for an interim board member will be conducted in the same fashion as for normal elections. Resignation must be in writing and received by all Board members. All members of the Organization must be notified of any resignations from the board within two weeks."
mllerustad: How's that?
- Signoff: tvol ()
mllerustad could have maybe tweaked the old language a little more, but now at least it's slightly less passive
Fear_of_C: is "members of the organization" well defined?
mllerustad: Chapters are members. So I guess it means notifying chapters, so the Chapters mailing list.
mllerustad: We could just say chapters.
Fear_of_C: ok, probably clearer
gavinbaker: i'm fine with the nomination/language
gavinbaker: still issues with the other stuff tho
gavinbaker: <gavinbaker> what does it mean for a resignation to be 'received' by the other board members?
gavinbaker: <gavinbaker> um, and what is a 'member of the Organization'?
gavinbaker: <gavinbaker> and why is there a 2 week window for notification? it takes 2 weeks to send an email?
mllerustad: member of the Organization = chapters... we say that earlier in the bylaws. But it would be clearer to make that explicit.
mllerustad: So we can do that.
skyfaller: yeah, let's change "member" to say "chapter"
mllerustad: gavinbaker: It's just to put an upper bound on it... we could make it less time if we chose.
gavinbaker: let's change the 'member' bit
gavinbaker: and let's move the boundary down
gavinbaker: it shouldn't take 2 weeks to send an email
mllerustad: One week?
skyfaller: one week is fine, I still think "one week vs. two week" debates are kind of silly
skyfaller: I'm fine either way
gavinbaker: one week would be better
gavinbaker: so what about the resignation being 'received'?
- Signoff: brylie ("Leaving")
mllerustad: gavinbaker: So you can't just tell your girlfriend on the board that you quit? You have to tell everyone?
skyfaller: it means it landed somewhere that the person should have seen it, and if they seem to be clueless you should check whether e.g. your e-mail got through or not
skyfaller: is that logical?
gavinbaker: why can't we just say, the resigning person has to notify the whole board?
gavinbaker: that's a lot clearer and also not passive-voice
gavinbaker: otherwise it's like, no, i refuse to open the email, i don't receive your resignation
gavinbaker: you know, like what does that mean
gavinbaker: saying you have to tender your resignation to the board is clearer
skyfaller: I'm fine with that
skyfaller: good thing we're writing this in now, Gavin, b/c I never accepted your resignation ;-)
mllerustad: Resolved: "If a board member resigns, nominations and elections for an interim board member will be conducted in the same fashion as for normal elections. Resigning board members must tender their resignation in writing to all remaining board members. All chapters must be notified of any resignations from the board within two weeks."
mllerustad: How's that?
mllerustad: Oh, right.
gavinbaker: so there's a missing bit about the election, i think, maybe
gavinbaker: the timeline
gavinbaker: i guess let me look at the "normal elections" bit
gavinbaker: oh, wait
gavinbaker: we never did that part
gavinbaker: ok, then this is internally consistent
gavinbaker: though it wouldn't hurt to have an explicit reference to the election section
gavinbaker: which is 1.1
gavinbaker: V 1.1
mllerustad: Resolved: "If a board member resigns, nominations and elections for an interim board member will be conducted in the same fashion as for normal elections as described in V.1.1. Resigning board members must tender their resignation in writing to all remaining board members. All chapters must be notified of any resignations from the board within one week."
gavinbaker: i'd move the order around, to put "Resigning board members must..." first
gavinbaker: then "All chapters..."
gavinbaker: with "If a board member resigns..." last
gavinbaker: otherwise i'm +1
mllerustad: "Resigning board members must tender their resignation in writing to all remaining board members. All chapters must be notified of any resignations from the board within one week. If a board member resigns, nominations and elections for an interim board member will be conducted in the same fashion as for normal elections as described in V.1.1."
mllerustad: +1 (obviously)
gavinbaker: this only took 45 min! w00t
gavinbaker: + - from anybody else?
Scudmissil: +1 from me, too
skyfaller: we're accelerating
gavinbaker: going once...
gavinbaker: next: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws_RC2#Section_2._Executive_Director
gavinbaker: Section 2. Executive Director
gavinbaker: let me be the first to propose that we rename the position
gavinbaker: i proposed Facilitator on the talk page; others have said Coordinator which is also ok by me
skyfaller: I'm still a fan of "Secretary"
skyfaller: but I don't actually care
gavinbaker: my comments: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Talk:Bylaws#Terminology:_.22Facilitator.22_vs._.22Executive_Director.22
gavinbaker: i see votes from Elizabeth and Brian for coordinator on the wiki
gavinbaker: are there are other comments scattered on the talk page about this?
gavinbaker: heh, Seth Johnson says "field commander"
gavinbaker: Fred says facilitator
gavinbaker: Ben likes anything "more mellow" than ED
gavinbaker: and that's what on the talk page
skyfaller: OK, I actively vote against both Facilitator and ED....
skyfaller: Facilitator sounds too weird
gavinbaker: i'm happy with coordinator or secretary
gavinbaker: i think i prefer coordinator out of the two
Fear_of_C: doesn't matter to me... coordinator or secretary is fine for me
gavinbaker: though that's just knee-jerk reaction
gavinbaker: is there any logic we can apply here, or is it just arbitrary?
skyfaller: I'm fine with coordinator... I'd like to see what existing orgs with those positions think of them
mllerustad: Yeah, "coordinator" is good.
skyfaller: I guess one possible problem with "secretary" is that it also implies the rest of the traditional officer lineup... president, vice president, secretary, treasurer
skyfaller: however, is that necessarily a bad thing?
skyfaller: there must be a reason that everyone has those officer positions
gavinbaker: it doesn't necessarily imply that...
mllerustad: Yeah, but wouldn't the prez's job be similar to the chair, or maybe the secretary?
mllerustad: I think it's a filter that doesn't fit what we've already got.
gavinbaker: i agree with mllerustad
gavinbaker: i think a lot of membership organizations have 'national secretaries' or similar
gavinbaker: and a lot of groups have 'coordinators'
skyfaller: what do national secretaries do?
skyfaller: the same thing as coordinators?
gavinbaker: the connotation, to me, is different
gavinbaker: coordinator is more like, staff-y
skyfaller: ah, I see
gavinbaker: secretary is more like, my job is to serve the members
skyfaller: I guess I would tend to agree
skyfaller: I guess Coordinator might be better if that is the connotation
gavinbaker: secretary sounds a lot more like an elected position, to me
skyfaller: let's do Coordinator then
skyfaller: Derek Slater is the "Activism Coordinator" at EFF... Karen mentions STAND's "student coordinator" as another precedent for a similar position?
gavinbaker: if we do end up adopting the president, vp, etc. stuff, then you might reasonably want a secretary
gavinbaker: so we'd have namespace collission
gavinbaker: i'm happy with coordinator
skyfaller: everyone OK with Coordinator then?
skyfaller: resolved: Executive Director => name changed to Coordinator
skyfaller: maybe we should specify what they are coordinating? if that's possible?
skyfaller: Brian Rowe in the comments on the bylaws floated the idea of an international coordinator, as well as a national coordinator for each country
K`Tetch: yeah, wonder where he got that idea from...
gavinbaker: elizabeth suggested national/international coordinator, either one
gavinbaker: though i think she was leaning more towards inter
gavinbaker: but i don't see the necessity to geo-specify
K`Tetch was the ppus' international co-ordinator
K`Tetch: now, i'm more the national one
mllerustad: I guess, I could see the need arising in the future, but it isn't here now.
K`Tetch: who are you going to coordinate with?
skyfaller: I mean, the Coordinator would have both jobs
gavinbaker: we can just call it coordinator
gavinbaker: and make more later if we want
K`Tetch: i meant internationally
gavinbaker: for now it's just one
gavinbaker: K`Tetch: our international chapters, assumedly
mllerustad: We could say that the Coordinator is international... the sub-jobs will be created if needed.
gavinbaker: it wouldn't be coordinating with others, it'd be coordinating ourselves across borders
skyfaller: international implies operating above the country level
gavinbaker: the coordinator works at the Org level. geo-boundaries not relevant
- Signoff: rohitj ("Leaving")
skyfaller: so the position is just the Coordinator
mllerustad: And we can create sub-vice-coordinators for countries/regions later if we want, if it's necessary, which doesn't have to be specified now.
K`Tetch: why not 'the operative' sounds more powerfull and cool
K`Tetch: since they're also basically overlooking operations
mllerustad: "you're on the global free culture frequency"
gavinbaker: head hax0r on campus
gavinbaker: coordinator is fine. +1
- klepas (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: more +/-?
Scudmissil: +1 on coordinator, and being at the international level
K`Tetch: glbal level
- rohitj (email@example.com) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: if we were going to add any adjective to the title, i like 'global' best
gavinbaker: i think it's fine without it
gavinbaker: so sounds like that's that
gavinbaker: now it's just, you know, the actual text.
K`Tetch: woohoo, i made a semi-usefull contribution
gavinbaker: first: "The executive director is selected by the board, as stated in 4.1.3."
TimHwang: that one seems pretty reasonable
gavinbaker: besides the fact that the number has changed
mllerustad: (it's 5.1.3 now)
gavinbaker: do we want to specify 'selected by majority vote' or something? it already says that anyway, but no harm in specifity / parallel language
gavinbaker: actually, given that this is already in 5.1.3, is this necessary to repeat?
mllerustad: It might not be necessary...
gavinbaker: just <?php include
mllerustad: I mean, if it helps with clarity, I'm not opposed, but...
gavinbaker: so keep it? cut it? specify more?
mllerustad: Cut it!
gavinbaker: i'm happy to cut it
- ryanfaerman (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: oh, for later reference: RESOLVED to change all references to ED to 'Coordinator'
mllerustad already +1'ed
mllerustad: I think there's a decent justification for linking back, so let's move the linkback to the second line.
mllerustad: (i.e. "within his/her powers as defined by the board of directors, as specified in 5.1.3"
skyfaller: I think linking back without providing any details is a good thing to do
gavinbaker: the language from 5.1.3, as decided previously, is: "The board of directors selects, directs, and terminates the executive director."
gavinbaker: wait, no, wrong
gavinbaker: oh, we agreed on the idea, but we're supposed to clean up the lgnauge
gavinbaker: and specify that those actions take place by vote of the board
gavinbaker: so if we want to linkback, we'll just paste the same language in here, once it's written.
gavinbaker: plus "as specified in 5.1.3"
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Why do we need to repeat it?
gavinbaker: ok, so repeat in irc what we just said irl
mllerustad: Both the creation and the powers of the Coordinator are in 5.1.3. Thus, I think it's valid to move the linkback to the second line and just cut the first.
mllerustad: Since the first is redundant.
gavinbaker: fine by me
skyfaller: any more votes?
skyfaller: vote early, vote often!
mllerustad votes early and often
skyfaller: alright, done
- Signoff: ryanfaerman ()
gavinbaker: "The executive director runs the day-to-day activities of the Organization, within his/her powers as defined by the board of directors."
gavinbaker: consistent with the name change, let's say they coordinate the activities
mllerustad: I think that's vague enough to be innocuous :)
gavinbaker: rather than 'run'
- mindspillage (n=kat@wikimedia/KatWalsh/x-0001) has joined channel #freeculture
mllerustad: OpenArena ++
gavinbaker: do we need to say 'day-to-day'?
gavinbaker: is there a better way to express that?
gavinbaker: would it be ok to say they coordinate the activities of the Organization?
mllerustad: I think it's appropriate enough.
gavinbaker: sans adjective?
mllerustad: Well, the division of power is that the board makes the big decisions while the Coordinator makes the little ones.
mllerustad: Hence "day-to-day" instead of "long-term"
gavinbaker: but with the language, the coordinator isn't making any decisions... they're just coordinating things!
gavinbaker: i think that saying 'they coordinate the activities' implies that the activities are being decided elsewhere, and they just see it through
mllerustad: Fair enough, it's not a big deal.
skyfaller: that language sounds fine to me... the Board can delegate whatever they want, so this language won't actually limit anything, it's just a guide
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: "The Coordinator coordinates the activities of the Organization, within their powers as defined by the board of directors."
gavinbaker: ah, i hadn't noticed the redundancy earlier
skyfaller: ... that sounds horrible, oops :)
skyfaller: actually it's fine
mllerustad: It could say "facilitates..."
skyfaller: it's logical and I don't care if it's repetitives
mllerustad: I don't really care.
gavinbaker: i'm fine with this ugly language
gavinbaker: it's not important
skyfaller: the resolution is fine, +1
mllerustad: Okay, let's move.
gavinbaker: people can apply make-up later, i'm more concerned with assembling frankenstein than making him/her/it look like ann coulter
gavinbaker: frankenstein, hitler, pick one
skyfaller: making *them*
gavinbaker: "To help him/her fulfill these duties, the executive director may appoint assistants, such as a lieutenant executive director, outreach director, web director, or fundraising director. These appointments are valid immediately, but must be confirmed at the next meeting of the board of directors."
mllerustad: Sure, why not?
gavinbaker: well, there's the whole appointment stuff we talked about last time
gavinbaker: this language is also really ugly
gavinbaker: how about just: "The Coordinator may make appointments consistent with the procedures in 5.1.3"
gavinbaker: oh, they can also fire
gavinbaker: can they make committees/teams, or is that the sole province of the board
skyfaller: good question
gavinbaker: i don't think, when we discussed the board yesterday, that we said the C could make teams/committees
mllerustad: I thought I suggested that they could make ad hoc committees, and no one was opposed...
skyfaller: I mean, I think they should be able to make teams
skyfaller: they should have the same abilities and responsibilities with regards to teams as with individual positions
gavinbaker: ok, here's what i really think
gavinbaker: that the Core Team should handle teams
gavinbaker: and neither the board nor the C need to have much to do with it
skyfaller: true, that may make more sense
gavinbaker: but there's no core team atm
gavinbaker: anyway, is it necessary that the C can make teams/whatever, or can we just leave the language as-is (about appointments/firings)?
mllerustad: I guess the board can always empower the Coordinator however they want.
mllerustad: Let's run with it.
skyfaller: OK, so what are we resolving?
gavinbaker: we're resolving not to touch the teams/committees question
- e-star (email@example.com) has joined channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: for the record, we should stop referring to them in the same breath
gavinbaker: and committees should be committees of the board
gavinbaker: teams are, you know, teams
skyfaller: that makes sense
skyfaller: e-star: howdy
gavinbaker: hey e-star
e-star: sorry i'm very late
e-star: i've had commitments
gavinbaker: it happens
e-star: that i couldn't cancel
e-star: what's currently going on?
gavinbaker: we're at http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_2._Executive_Director line 3
mllerustad: So we're resolving to just adopt it as is?
mllerustad: Are there any other questions on it?
gavinbaker: so my proposal is: The Coordinator may make appointments consistent with the procedures in 5.1.3"
gavinbaker: to replace the whole line with ^^
e-star: also, sorry if we've already beaten this to death, but are we still calling it ED?
mllerustad: e-star: We agreed on Coordinator... is that alright with you?
e-star: mllerustad: yup
gavinbaker: so comments on my suggestion? yeas and nays?
gavinbaker: ( mllerustad and skyfaller are playing a video game 'in their spare time', i.e. in lieu of paying attention )
skyfaller: sorry, I was also taking a phone call
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Sounds good to me.
gavinbaker: +1 from here
mllerustad: le +1.
e-star: one sec
e-star: what's in 5.1.3?
skyfaller: so the 3rd and 4th sentences are going to be replaced with "The Coordinator may make appointments consistent with the procedures in 5.1.3"
gavinbaker: e-star: pretend it's 4.1.3, but re-numbered
skyfaller: ah, yes
skyfaller: this is because we've added a section, Definitions
skyfaller: which will help reduce the redundant lanugage
skyfaller: unfortunately it also forces us to renumber
gavinbaker: unfortunately the language we agreed on last meeting for 5.1.3 isn't written yet
gavinbaker: but it basically says the Coordinator can hire/fire volunteers, with review by the board
gavinbaker: questions, comments, yeas and nays?
e-star: hm okay
e-star: so basically we're saying that the coordinator can make any appointments
e-star: as long as the board confirms it
e-star: also -- i'm worried that the board seats seem to be rather work-intensive
e-star: but when does the position go into effect?
gavinbaker: e-star: how so?
gavinbaker: what we changed yesterday just says, the board does everything, except what they delegate
skyfaller: well, actually, what we said last meeting was that they don't have to actively confirm appointments
gavinbaker: about appointments specifically, what skyfaller says
skyfaller: they just have to not refuse, just like the chapters
gavinbaker: same procedure as chapter approval
skyfaller: unless there's a conflict, i.e. someone gets upset for some reason
skyfaller: then there's a complaints procedure
skyfaller: and the board has to pay attention
skyfaller: so yes, we have taken steps to reduce the board's workload
skyfaller: but if the board wants to keep its workload down, it'll have to delegate stuff, and only it has the power to delegate
e-star: oh i see
e-star: so is this clarified?
e-star: that it's more of an opportunity for refusal?
e-star: should we state
e-star: that it is the coordinator's responsibility to notify the board
e-star: about any appointments?
e-star: or is that inherent?
gavinbaker: i think we agreed on that yesterday
gavinbaker: unfortunately nobody has yet written up all the changes we approved yesterday
gavinbaker: but we have the log
e-star: oh okay, i support adding that
e-star: just to clarify
e-star: that things don't get lost
gavinbaker: yeah, i agree
gavinbaker: so can we RESOLVE all this?
e-star: i'm fine w/ that revision btw
gavinbaker: for clarity's sake
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: 1) "The Coordinator may make appointments consistent with the procedures in 5.1.3"
gavinbaker: make and break appointments, whatever
gavinbaker: 2) in 5.1.3, be sure to note that the coordinator has to notify the board of appointments/firings
mllerustad: gavinbaker: +1
skyfaller: +1 to both
peabo: (back to keyboard)
gavinbaker: ok, next
gavinbaker: "The executive director is in charge of announcing elections for the board of directors, determining a deadline for voting, tallying votes, and any other election-related responsibilities."
gavinbaker: i find it weird that the staff runs elections
skyfaller: how should we do it instead?
gavinbaker: at the same time, i'm not sure who else should do it
e-star: ED should find an impartial third party
e-star: to run
e-star: the election
e-star: also, sorry if we've already discussed this, but has there been (1) talk about incorporation in the bylaws and (2) talk about what happens before we have an ED?
gavinbaker: well, hopefully the coordinator is impartial
e-star: gavinbaker: still
mllerustad: e-star: Not yet.
gavinbaker: but i agree, like an external 3rd party
e-star: gavinbaker: needs to be an external 3rd aprty
peabo: can a notary public or someone like that run an election?
gavinbaker: so i like e-star's language
e-star: ED can announce election and deadline
e-star: third party tallies votes and submits results
gavinbaker: peabo: only ministers of the church of the subgenius
peabo: yeah, let Bob do it
e-star: okay, does anyone have a problem w/ my proposal??
gavinbaker: e-star: can you write up a sentence we can paste in?
gavinbaker: i'm fine w/ the idea
e-star: The Coordinator is in charge of announcing elections for the board of directors and determining a deadline for voting. The Coordinator will appoint an external third party to tally votes and submit results to the board, who will then notify the organization.
e-star: (doesn't need to be the board..just maybe made more sense)
e-star: er, i meant, previous board
gavinbaker: i like "responsible for" better than "in charge of"
gavinbaker: e-star: could the 3rd party report the results to the coordinator, which announces them?
e-star: yes, i said, either one
gavinbaker: well, let's pick :D
e-star: but what do we do in the case of no ED
gavinbaker: e-star: good question, we'll get there
mllerustad: I think the coordinator makes more sense... they're certainly more impartial than the outgoing board is about the outcome.
e-star: i prefer having it in the hands of multiple ppl
e-star: i think there's more accountability that way
e-star: either way i'm sure it will be fine
gavinbaker: well, you could have the 3rd party send the result to both, and the coordinator announces it
e-star: (mllerustad: maybe not if we allow the coordinator to run)
e-star: gavinbaker: sure
mllerustad: Hm, point, we haven't decided that yet.
e-star: that's good
peabo: I thought tht yesterday's decision is that since the ED/C gets their authority by deletion from the board, that in the absence of an ED/C the board has to perform all the duties which would otherwise be delegated to ED/C
e-star: The Coordinator is responsible for announcing elections for the board of directors and determining a deadline for voting. The Coordinator will appoint an external third party to tally votes and submit results to the board and the Coordinator, who will then notify the organization.
gavinbaker: peabo: that would be a natural conclusion, i think
e-star: (that could be too ambiguous as to who notifies)
e-star: also the responsible for sounds a bit awkward
gavinbaker: i think responsible for is better than in charge of
gavinbaker: doesn't really matter
gavinbaker: at the end we could just say specifically "; the Coordinator shall notify the Organization" for clarity
e-star: and the board is there to confirm
e-star: also does anyone have a right to review?
e-star: audit the results, etc
skyfaller: no idea
peabo: are these paper ballots or ballots by any synchronous communication?
mllerustad: If we use an open-source voting technique, presumably anyone could.
e-star: did we already settle on a voting method?
mllerustad: Just said it'd be determined by the board... we could specify that it be open-source and verifiable by any chapter.
gavinbaker: e-star: i think we skipped the whole question of voting for the board
e-star: as in, preferential versus pick 5 versus some other method
gavinbaker: and i think we should come back to that question
gavinbaker: since it's not really a question about the ED
e-star: gavinbaker: i'm fine with your last line
gavinbaker: it belongs back in 5.1.1 which we skipped after that first meeting
gavinbaker: RESOLVED: " The Coordinator is responsible for announcing elections for the board of directors and determining a deadline for voting. The Coordinator will appoint an external third party to tally votes and submit results to the board and the Coordinator; the Coordinator shall notify the Organization of the results."
gavinbaker: anything needed there?
mllerustad: Looks good to me.
e-star: might want to change will to shall
e-star: to keep w/ the style
gavinbaker: we can write it all one way or another throughout the whole doc
skyfaller: shall sounds properly pretentious for bylaws
gavinbaker: pick one and we'll apply it at the end
skyfaller: let's go with shall
mllerustad: Resolved: Shall.
e-star: moving on?
gavinbaker: "The executive director must report to the board of directors regularly."
gavinbaker: that's so vague as to be pretty meaningless, no?
gavinbaker: "The Coordinator shall keep the board informed of all activities"..?
skyfaller: that sounds a bit extreme... does the Board even want to know EVERYTHING the Coordinator does?
e-star: plus the board doesn't have time to hear about every email the coordinator sent
mllerustad: "Monday, 9:03AM: I took a dump."
gavinbaker: "The Coordinator must post on Twitter no less frequently than every 10 minutes"
gavinbaker: "including while sleeping"
mllerustad: FreeCulture.org brand tracking collar?
e-star: how about all major activities
e-star: or we could be more specific and say the coordinator must send out a weekly email to the board highlighting major activities
mllerustad: That wouldn't be a terrible thing to institue.
mllerustad: Especially if they're paid.
skyfaller: yeah, if they're paid it's a no-brainer
mllerustad: I have to do that for my internship anyway.
skyfaller: keeping a time-sheet / summary of activities would be essential for a paid position
gavinbaker: no need for it to be just for the board
gavinbaker: why not let everybody get that email
gavinbaker: unless there's sensitive stuff for some reason
gavinbaker: more transparency ftw
skyfaller: yeah, it should be public unless there is something secret which they can just report to the board separately
mllerustad: i.e. "Today I pirated massive quantities of Hollywood movies!!"
gavinbaker: come on, when we say "secret" it gives the idea too much credibility (like "intellectual property"). we should only use the term "s33krit"
e-star: it could in theory get a bit redundant
peabo: confidential is better than secret
gavinbaker: peabo is reasonable as always
Fear_of_C: "classified information"
skyfaller: let's leave it in, we can monkey with the exact language, but the idea is sound
gavinbaker: skyfaller: wait, leave what in
gavinbaker: the existing language is: "The executive director must report to the board of directors regularly."
gavinbaker: that's no good; it doesn't say what they have to report or how frequently
skyfaller: can't we let the board decide?
gavinbaker: and the report only goes to the board, which i think is silly unless there's something s33krit
skyfaller: OK, so I agree it should be public
skyfaller: except for any confidential information
gavinbaker: skyfaller: sure, the board could decide the frequency or whatever
gavinbaker: but "must report" is so vague as to be meaningless
gavinbaker: report what?
mllerustad: "on their major activities"?
gavinbaker: can be crib this from wikimedia?
peabo: a major activity is anything the coordinator has been directed to do by the board, or anything the coordinator has proposed to do which the board has given a go-ahead to do, or ... something else?
skyfaller: so let's say "The Coordinator must report on their major activities to the Organization on a regular basis" ... as determined by the Board?
gavinbaker: i guess wikimedia doesn't have an executive director in their bylaws... that's funny
gavinbaker: i'm fine with skyfaller's language. we don't need to add anything to it; the board can specify anything the bylaws dont
mllerustad: Fine with me.
mllerustad: Alright, I'll add it as a Resolved:.
gavinbaker: going, going, gone
e-star: hold on
gavinbaker: or, not
e-star: doesn't work
e-star: but i fear that there may be sensitive issues
gavinbaker: e-star: these jerks want to use the singular they throughout the document.
e-star: no way
mllerustad: It's less wordy!
e-star: it's just incorrectg
mllerustad: And everyone uses it!
gavinbaker: yeah, that's what i think, too
e-star: er, incorrect
e-star: it sounds bad
mllerustad: The dictionary uses it, major literary figures use it...
gavinbaker: mllerustad: everyone who can't speak english.
gavinbaker: but anyway, this is not a major issue
e-star: where does the "dictionary" use it?
gavinbaker: e-star: was there another thing you wanted to bring up?
e-star: so i'm saying
mllerustad: Jeg elsker I!
e-star: gavinbaker: yes
e-star: i'm saying that the ED may want to report to the board
e-star: on things that aren't public
e-star: i.e. proposed partnerships
e-star: things that have not yet been announced
gavinbaker: e-star: so we create an exemption for s33krit/sensitive topics
gavinbaker: which have to be reported to the board but not to the full Org
skyfaller: yeah... does that even have to be in the bylaws though? if so, someone write the language
gavinbaker: skyfaller: if we say the person has to report to the Org, we should say what doesn't have to be reported, that would otherwise
gavinbaker: if that makes sense
e-star: The Coordinator must report to the Organization on his or her major activities on a regular basis, as defined by the board.
e-star: i know it's bad
e-star: but their is worse
gavinbaker: e-star: just forget about the pronouns for now
e-star: or "to be determined by the board"
skyfaller: we'll fight over pronouns after everything else is solved
gavinbaker: for specificity we could just add "The board may provide exemptions for confidential or sensitive information"
skyfaller: sounds good
gavinbaker: +1 from me
gavinbaker: comments, +/-?
gavinbaker: going, going...
gavinbaker: well, believe it or not
gavinbaker: that's the whole ED section
e-star: is it just "coordinator"
gavinbaker: e-star: right
e-star: or executive coordinator?
e-star: or something else?
gavinbaker: just coordinator
gavinbaker: Article V (now VI): Amendments
gavinbaker: "The board of directors may revise the bylaws as appropriate with a two-thirds majority vote. Proposed amendments must be submitted in writing to the chapters."
gavinbaker: ok, clearly the board should not revise the bylaws...
e-star: two-thirds and majority seems redundant fwiw
mllerustad: Yeah, I think this should go to chapters.
e-star: should the board propose revisions and the chapters vote?
e-star: too many chapter votes could get out of hand
mllerustad: I think chapters should be able to propose revisions as well as the board...
gavinbaker: chapters have to vote at least
gavinbaker: you gotta leave it to chapters to ratify amendments
mllerustad: Well, hm.
e-star: esp. if it's for something minor
gavinbaker: otherwise the board just writes an amendment that says "oh btw the board can never be voted out"
mllerustad: "board seat: not yours"
e-star: i'm just worried
gavinbaker: the way to limit excessive votes is not by preventing the chapters from voting
gavinbaker: the chapters have to ratify
e-star: that we'll change something minor
gavinbaker: the way to avoid the problem is to set a high standard for getting to a vote
e-star: and chapters will have to ratify every other week
gavinbaker: e-star: ^^
gavinbaker: i think we should have a regular schedule for amendments
e-star: okay, so how do we get around this?
gavinbaker: e.g. at the same time as board elections
gavinbaker: = annually
e-star: amendments can only go up once a year?
gavinbaker: is the time when proposed amendments can be voted on
e-star: that is problematic in and of itself though
e-star: because there could be a very long lead time
gavinbaker: just hope you don't have to change the bylaws very much
gavinbaker: seriously, these shouldn't take much changing
e-star: ~11 months or so
gavinbaker: that's the point of bylaws
e-star: well let's allow for it at least twice a year
gavinbaker: we could give the board the ability to call special ratification elections
gavinbaker: e-star: heh i thought you just said you were worried about too many votes ;)
gavinbaker: the bylaws really shouldn't be getting changed very much
mllerustad: board-directed amendments anytime, chapter-led amendments at board election time?
e-star: gavinbaker: no i don't mean it *will* happen twice a year
gavinbaker: i think annually, at the same time as the board elections, is a natural time to vote on ratification
e-star: gavinbaker: i just mean, if there's a big change to be made, there's the possibility for having the change go into effect sooner
gavinbaker: e-star: ok, so how do you invoke an election outside of board election time?
e-star: you say that ratifications may be voted on at six month intervals
gavinbaker: that sounds ok
e-star: or you leave it up to the discretion of the board to call for elections for major changes
gavinbaker: i don't know if the board needs the power to call special elections
gavinbaker: every 6 mo seems fine
gavinbaker: so what's the process for getting an amendment on the ballot?
e-star: i've got to run in a few
e-star: you could have sponsoring chapters
e-star: or sponsoring board members
skyfaller: that seems like a reasonable concept...
gavinbaker: but how many sponsors do you need?
skyfaller: is there any precedent we can follow?
gavinbaker: just one and something automatically goes on the ballot?
mllerustad: And hold them to the "submit in writing to everyone" requirement.
gavinbaker: you could end up with a lot of amendments that way
skyfaller: we could require two sponsors
e-star: at least two sponsoring chapters or board members
- urgyen (firstname.lastname@example.org) has joined channel #freeculture
peabo: it resembles Robert's move + second
mllerustad: I think that through the board it should be a majority of the board, i.e. "the board" as a body
e-star: mllerustad: hmm
mllerustad: Otherwise you're giving two individuals a lot of power.
e-star: mllerustad: not really
e-star: mllerustad: i don't think this should require a majority vote from the board
e-star: mllerustad: if it's stupid, then the chapters wont' ratify
mllerustad: Well, it doesn't, via the chapter route.
mllerustad: That's true with any amendment.
gavinbaker: e-star: again, you don't want to overload the chapters with votes
mllerustad: The point is to not clog the intertubes with stupid amendments...that's why we make two chapters sponsor.
gavinbaker: even if they vote them all down
e-star: mllerustad: i mean, in order to get to the chapter vote, either two board members or two chapters or one chapter and one board member not from that chapter need to sponsor it
gavinbaker: you get voter fatigue and people stop paying attention, and then even worse stuff happens
gavinbaker: e-star: i think that's just confusing
mllerustad: I wasn't aware combining was an option...
gavinbaker: 1 board member != 1 chapter
e-star: no, it was just something kind of arbitrary
gavinbaker: i think it has to be proposed by a.) 2 chapters or b.) the board (by majority vote)
peabo: how is a board member actually from a chapter? the board members are elected at large and are expected to represent the interests of the organization, not the chapters they happen to be members of
e-star: i think the majority vote threshold is a bit high
e-star: but i guess that person could always go to a chapter and try to get two to sign on
mllerustad: peabo: That's true in principle, but it is something that should be taken into consideration all the same.
- Signoff: rohitj (Remote closed the connection)
mllerustad: e-star: It's lower than what it takes to ratify :)
e-star: how about 3 board members or 2 chapters?
e-star: i just worry that majority is too high
peabo: another reason for disliking the requirement for majority of directors to sponsor an amendment is that it gives the misleading impression that the board has put their imprimatur on it in a way that having simply two sponsors does not .. it sort of stacks the deck for approval
e-star: good point
skyfaller: peabo has a good point
e-star: 3 board members is still somewhat significant
skyfaller: 3 board members is a majority if the board is 5 members in size though, which is the size we set last meeting, no?
gavinbaker: e-star: 3 board members = majority vote
e-star: we set the board as 5??
e-star: i think that is too small
gavinbaker: e-star: shoulda been here then ;)
e-star: gavinbaker: was traveling back from ny
e-star: not everyone can be on irc at all times.....
peabo: there was extensive discussion about what if there aren't enough interested candidates to make a board of 7
e-star: well i absolutely disagree
e-star: i think the board should be 7
e-star: and i could even imagine people not ratifying on that basis
mllerustad: Who's going to be on it?
mllerustad: We didn't have enough for five reliably.
gavinbaker: for comparison, when legislatures can vote to send amendments to the ballot, it usually takes a super-majority, not *less* than a majority
e-star: i know a lot of interested people
skyfaller: e-star: then don't ratify the bylaws, let's make or break the organization based on two board seats
gavinbaker: e-star: if they're so interested they should have showed up yesterday to tell us to make the board bigger
gavinbaker: or commented on the talk page that the board should be bigger than 5
e-star: skyfaller: yesterday was a very last minute meeting
skyfaller: the one before that wasn't, and nobody came to that one either
gavinbaker: e-star: i'm not thrilled with this procedure but it's the best we have
e-star: skyfaller: yes, i was also traveling then
mllerustad: e-star: Yes, and so is this.
mllerustad: But we have to stay on schedule.
e-star: well i know a lot of interested people
gavinbaker: there's an amendment process to change things in the future
e-star: and especially w/ our new process
gavinbaker: we need to pass something now
e-star: well i do not approve of 5
e-star: i just don't
e-star: i think b/c others can nominate people
skyfaller: the alternative is to drag out this process into the new school year, and still not have bylaws or elections
gavinbaker: and we can't be backtracking all the time or we'll never finish
e-star: we will have a lot more candidates
skyfaller: e-star: great, then we'll have the best 5 candidates
skyfaller: instead of uncontested seats
e-star: it's not impossible to reconsider the issue here
e-star: i can easily think of 7 people that would want to be on it
mllerustad: How about nine or ten?
skyfaller: e-star: yes, but is that enough for competition?
gavinbaker: e-star: it's not impossible, anything is possible, even unicorns. but we already made the procedure and should stick to it so we can finish, since we're already quite late
e-star: plus we'll have a more diverse representation from chaptesr
e-star: which is important
skyfaller: what if 5 of them are good and 2 are mediocre? do they all deserve to be on the board?
e-star: gavinbaker: i'm really quite unhappy with it
gavinbaker: if there ends up being many more than 5 candidates then amendments can be presented to raise the number for the following year
gavinbaker: e-star: sorry you're unhappy with it
e-star: we also discussed leaving this number to later
gavinbaker: e-star: yesterday was "later"
e-star: no i meant
e-star: to the actual election itself
peabo: sjyfaller: mediocre is not anything you can legislate against in the bylaws
gavinbaker: e-star: we decided that was unworkable
- Signoff: mark007 (Success)
gavinbaker: you can read the log to see what we talked about if that interests you
skyfaller: peabo: of course not, but you shouldn't increase the board size to the number of people interested in being on the board
skyfaller: b/c then you have an uncontested election
gavinbaker: this is the 4th of these meetings so far, each of which has lasted multiple hours. i'm not interested in dragging this out any more than necessary
gavinbaker: there's an amendment process
gavinbaker: and if it's that bad, chapters can refuse to ratify
e-star: i don't see how i can't bring this up again in this process
gavinbaker: but i'd rather stick to the process and cross that bridge when we come to it
e-star: what if
mllerustad: e-star: Because then everything else could be in question just as easily.
mllerustad: We can't make an exception for you.
mllerustad: I'm sorry.
skyfaller: my thesis is that that the chapters should ratify these bylaws no matter what so long as they are happy with the amendment process
e-star: well if people have conflicts
gavinbaker: e-star: you can't, in this process. this process, of drafting RC2, doesn't provide for continually second-guessing what we already decided or else we'll never finish
e-star: they should have an opportunity to contribute nonetheless
gavinbaker: e-star: if people have conflicts, amend it in the future, or refuse to ratify it altogether
mllerustad: e-star: the Talk page?
skyfaller: b/c then at least they have an organization, which they can improve upon
mllerustad: It's been their for weeks...
gavinbaker: e-star: your objections will be noted in the log and can go on the talk page too
e-star: mllerustad: and i've commented on the talk page
mllerustad: e-star: On this?
e-star: i think i asked how we'd determine the number
e-star: i was going to suggest that we lower the number of available board seats if they go uncontested
e-star: i feel very strongly
e-star: about encouraging broader participation
peabo: gavin, why not let there be one final round of discussion after everything has been addressed, so that any final adjustmnnets can be made? we have already "gone back to" things during the discussions because something came up which had not been anticipated at the time
e-star: on the board, etc
skyfaller: I think it's better to lower the number first and raise it later if there is too much competition
e-star: and not just having it be the same people
e-star: and i think the number of 5 is just too limiting
gavinbaker: peabo: because we're already late and are running out of time before we hit the upcoming school year, when people stop paying attention
gavinbaker: e-star: i'm sorry, you have the avenues we've mentioned. we need to move on
mllerustad: "If we don't specify how many members the board will comprise in the bylaws, we need to specify a method for determining this number." Well, we did specify it.
e-star: so the method was what several people decided last night?
mllerustad: If, then. The 'if' wasn't true, in this case.
mllerustad: So, amendments.
e-star: if i can't make the synchronous meeting because i'm traveling, then i'm screwed?
gavinbaker: e-star: at the meeting we fixed a number, and it can be changed via the amendment process
mllerustad: No, comment specifically that you don't want a five-person board.
e-star: in 6 months
peabo: running out of time is a truly awful excuse for not yoing the best that can be done
mllerustad: That you want a seven or more person board.
gavinbaker: so about that amendment process
gavinbaker: we should figure it out
e-star: peabo: yes, agreed
gavinbaker: so we have a good one to deal with concerns like this
gavinbaker: but for now, we need to draft something
skyfaller: we need an organization. That requires a founding document and leadership. We need this stuff before the upcoming semester.
skyfaller: anything is better than nothing at this point
e-star: skyfaller: i don't see that revisiting one issue is going to put that completely to a halt
e-star: especially when we have agreed on so many of the other issues
mllerustad: It is right now, ain't it?
gavinbaker: e-star: ever heard of a slippery slope? it's not that i don't want to revisit this, it's htat i don't want to revisit *everything*
skyfaller: each of these meetings has been taking 4-5 hours
e-star: gavinbaker: i understand, but we've already come to a consensus on so much else
gavinbaker: and if revisit here than why not revisit anything whenever anybody looks at it cross-eyed?
mllerustad: e-star: If we reverse the decision here, then those who attended the meeting yesterday will have just as many complaints as you do now.
e-star: gavinbaker: and i do not consent to the 5 person board
mllerustad: It's "undemocratic" to them too.
e-star: mllerustad: fine then we should have a way of contacting them
e-star: to revisit
mllerustad: We could call a meeting!
mllerustad: Oh wait...
peabo: actually I think the number of people who were adamant about 5 (actually 3 for a while) are all here right now
e-star: i just think that if i arbitrarily had a conflict
e-star: w/ one meeting
e-star: then i'm screwed
e-star: as to this issue
e-star: that is not democratic
e-star: to me
mllerustad: It's not like we saved this particular issue for when you wouldn't be around...
gavinbaker: e-star: your chapter gets to vote whether to ratify
skyfaller: that's democracy
gavinbaker: if it's really so horrible, then vote against the bylaws
gavinbaker: if you don't like it, but you still want a functional organization, then approve them even though they're imperfect and fix them *later*
skyfaller: amend the bylaws later, or don't ratify them. that's it, let's work on the important stuff, which is the amendment process
gavinbaker: for now i just want to get to Done.
skyfaller: we can tweak numbers after we have a system in place
gavinbaker: the important thing is having a useful amendments process
skyfaller: so long as everyone is happy with the amendment process, nothing else in these bylaws matter
gavinbaker: which is what we were trying to resolve now
gavinbaker: so amendments can be proposed by 2 sponsoring chapters or a vote of the board. is that fine by everyone?
e-star: skyfaller: but i'm not happy that it will take me a year to get the change in place
skyfaller: the only thing I would be willling to revisit until everyone is happy is this amendments process, for the record
e-star: skyfaller: if people do not ratify on this basis, it will take a lot longer than that
gavinbaker: skyfaller: we don't have to revisit it, we just have to visit it, which is what we're doing now ;)
e-star: skyfaller: so it seems better to me then to work out a consensus
mllerustad: e-star: If people vote it down, we can re-submit it on any time schedule.
e-star: i have added my opinion to the talk page
gavinbaker: e-star: if people really vote it, and it's for this specific reason, then we know exactly what to change to make it acceptable. it can approved the next day
gavinbaker: *if people really vote the bylaws down
gavinbaker: amendments: proposed by 2 sponsoring chapters or a vote of the board?
gavinbaker: mllerustad: well you only need one
mllerustad: I guess I meant that we aren't deciding between them.
e-star: i have to go. i am honestly ready to not ratify on this basis, but i will have to discuss it w/ my chapter
e-star: 3 board members or 2 chapters
e-star: it sounds better than "majority"
e-star: and perhaps 3 board members will not be a majority
e-star: in a later iteration
gavinbaker: e-star: no, it should be a proposal by the board
gavinbaker: not just by some board members
mllerustad: e-star: That's the problem we have, that it might not be a majority.
e-star: mllerustad: i'm fine w/ that
e-star: i don't feel the need to require a majority
gavinbaker: there's a difference -- once is an action by the body, the other is an action by some dudes
e-star: then it seems like it's blessed by the board
e-star: as peabo pointed out
skyfaller: maybe it should have to be blessed by the board
e-star: i disagree
gavinbaker: e-star: so what? again, i note that when legislatures propose amendments, they usually require *more* than a majority vote
skyfaller: if they can't get even two chapters to sign onto it, then it couldn't be a great idea
e-star: gavinbaker: not in the house/senate itself
gavinbaker: you want a reasonable bar for amendments here
e-star: i think 3 board members is fine
gavinbaker: e-star: are you trying to tell me that congress doesn't have to approve by at least a majority vote an amendment to the constitution?
peabo: (the ERA has been waiting for 2/3 states ratification for more then 50 years)
gavinbaker: that it could be e.g. 33% vote?
e-star: gavinbaker: no i mean to have a vote in the house
e-star: gavinbaker: or the senate
gavinbaker: e-star: we're not saying it requires 3 sponsors to get a vote of the board
mllerustad: Right, but that's not for a ratification vote.
gavinbaker: we're saying it requires any 1 board member to propose it, per whatever procedures the board adopts, and then the board as a whole has to vote for it.
gavinbaker: the board shouldn't be doing much with the bylaws anyway
e-star: i'm talking about changing the law
e-star: aka the bylaws
gavinbaker: the bylaws are not for the board to change
gavinbaker: they're for the chapters to change
gavinbaker: e-star: the bylaws are more like a constitution than a law
e-star: then forget the board
e-star: two chapters
e-star: most board members will be from a chapter anyway
e-star: gavinbaker: i'm not so sure
e-star: gavinbaker: they're kind of like both combined
peabo: if you make the bylaws too stringent on board proposals, all the intersted board members have to so is ask someone in "their" chapters to propose it ... then you're back to 2 proposals, but it's a sneak action
gavinbaker: e-star: i'm actually fine with chapters being the only way to propose an amendment
gavinbaker: i thought a majority vote of the board would add some flexibility without giving the board members undue influence
gavinbaker: but i'm fine to scrap it
mllerustad: peabo: And I think that's fine--the chapter majority doesn't necessarily have to agree with the board member, but if it does that's a good sign.
e-star: what percentage of chapters need to approve the bylaws?
e-star: did we decide this yet?
gavinbaker: e-star: i assume that amendments should have to be approved by the same margin as the bylaws have to be ratified
gavinbaker: which, actually, i don't think is written into the bylaws yet
e-star: gavinbaker: and what is this
gavinbaker: but we agreed it'd be -- what'd we agree on, 2/3?
gavinbaker: when we had that board meeting
mllerustad: or was it 3/4?
skyfaller: 3/4 sounds right to me
e-star: also, is it 3/4 of voting chapters?
skyfaller: we can go look at our e-mail
e-star: or 3/4 of registered or what?
e-star: i'm positive it was 3/4
e-star: i remember saying it would be a problem if 1/3 of our chapters did not approve
skyfaller: 3/4 of those who re-register and vote
e-star: so we need a process if the bylaws don't pass
peabo: btw, skyfaller: do you have a timeline on the reregistration + vote for the bylaws approval?
mllerustad: e-star: Not in the bylaws... not to say it wouldn't be a good idea, but shouldn't we finish the bylaws draft first?
skyfaller: peabo: we had one, the schedule slipped... I would assume that all of the intervals remain the same, just pushed back the number of days until we complete RC 2
gavinbaker: it was 3/4, from the log of that board meeting, to verify
peabo: what I am wondering is, should reregistration be happening right now, even though we're not finished with the bylaws ...
gavinbaker: peabo: it should be.
gavinbaker: this is where we all glare at paulproteus
e-star: i have to go, what is left?
skyfaller: we didn't finish Amendments
peabo: because there may be delays due to incoherence of the chapters (people graduated and nobody knows who's in charge) or simply because people are rushed prior to getting abck to school
gavinbaker: well, we don't have a complete process for amendments
gavinbaker: like what is the timeline/process for getting an amendment on the ballot
peabo: rduceing an extra round-trip for registration would be desirable
skyfaller: peabo: this is when we have to re-register chapters, otherwise they won't get stuff shipped to them in time for the new semester
skyfaller: and if they don't have their act together now, then they're not going to get off to a good start anyway
skyfaller: of course they can always register later
peabo: so reregistration is now a prerequisite for voting on the bylaws?
gavinbaker: what if we have the Coordinator schedule these mid-term amendment elections
peabo: er, not a prereq
gavinbaker: and announce them at least, say, 60 days in advance
gavinbaker: proposed amendments have to be submitted at least 30 days in advance, with 2 sponsors
skyfaller: peabo: yes, it has to be, we have a lot of dead chapters sitting around that people have been complaining about, we need to figure out who is active and who isn't
gavinbaker: then people have a month to read over the proposals and talk over them before voting
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Sounds reasonable to me.
gavinbaker: peabo: reregistration has always been a prereq for voting on the bylaws, so we know the potential voters ;)
gavinbaker: other comments on the amendment process i suggested?
mllerustad: Sorry all, but I have to go to bed... work in the morning :p
peabo: well it is about 28 days left for a rereg cycle plus a voting cycle in order to meet your deadline of start of the semester ... not a very long time at all!
e-star: gavinbaker: i just find it weird that we can't talk over the proposed changes to the bylaws after a meeting
e-star: gavinbaker: especially if we had a travel conflict w/ the mtg!
peabo: if only 40% of the chapters make the dedline, but more would like to have if they had had enough time, there will be a loss of good will
e-star: gavinbaker: it seems weird to have to announce the elections 60 days in advance if there may not even be any amendments in the first place
gavinbaker: e-star: well let's say you announce a 30-day deadline for submitting proposals
gavinbaker: if there areno proposals then there are no amendments
e-star: gavinbaker: right, so silly to announce an election if it won't take place
e-star: maybe i am misunderstanding you
skyfaller: peabo: you don't understand, registering is really easy and everyone should make it... it's in fact a little too easy to register a chapter according to some people.
gavinbaker: e-star: you announce the potential for an election, if any amendments are submitted
gavinbaker: if any are submitted you vote. if none are submitted you don't
skyfaller: peabo: to be extra sure, I'll do what I always do and personally call + IM + e-mail every chapter contact that I have
e-star: gavinbaker: right, i'm saying i think we should only announce the election if it will take place
e-star: gavinbaker: instead we should have a call for proposals
e-star: er, announce it
peabo: skyfaller: that sounds good
skyfaller: hopefully in the future my services in that regard will no longer be required, b/c we'll have a functional organization
gavinbaker: e-star: sure, call it whatever
gavinbaker: same difference
gavinbaker: is the idea good, though, or is there something that should be changed?
peabo: so then the target for the vote on the bylaws is approximately the end of september, assuming that the bylaws themselves are available for study at the beginning of september?
skyfaller: peabo: target for the vote on the bylaws is still by the end of August
skyfaller: target for elections has sadly slipped into Sept
peabo: as a software engineer I am skeptical that you will make that dealine ... but I will buy you a beer if you do
gavinbaker: peabo: some people go back to school in 2weeks, so you see why there's an interest in keeping a tight schedule...
- Fear_of_C has left channel #freeculture
gavinbaker: on top of the many hours we've already spent in these meetings
skyfaller: peabo: if it doesn't get done before then, it isn't getting done
skyfaller: b/c I'll have law school, and I won't be working on this anymore
gavinbaker: by late september, everyone will be back in school, with a lot less ability to spend any time on this stuff
peabo: (yeah, I have read about 1L)
e-star: gavinbaker: we may spend more if the bylaws don't pass b/c people did not actually reach a consensus
skyfaller: by the time school starts, we have to be doing activism
skyfaller: e-star: you can't reach consensus on this whole document with everybody in every chapter
gavinbaker: e-star: what about the amendment process.
skyfaller: back to the amendment process
e-star: so yes, 60 days prior to the election have a call for amendments
e-star: 30 days prior deadline for submission
e-star: board can determine whether they meet the criteria
e-star: (2 sponsored chapters, have to be more than trivial)
e-star: then announce the election upon the submission of amendments that qualify
e-star: or no election if nothing submitted
gavinbaker: e-star: wait, what criteria
e-star: 2 sponsoring chapters
e-star: has to be more than trivial
gavinbaker: how can there democratically be 'criteria' for a valid amendment, besides that it has 2 sponsors?
e-star: i don't want to have an election on a comma
gavinbaker: i don't see the justification for setting a 'non-trivial' standard
gavinbaker: or how anybody could reasonable enforce that standard
e-star: haha, people do things like that in law all the time
gavinbaker: the ratification process itself is the only way to enforce it
e-star: but fine
peabo: 2 sponsering chapters is the definition of non-trivial
gavinbaker: peabo: i agree, or if it's too trivial, we can raise the number there
gavinbaker: but i don't think there should any external standard on validity
e-star: okay i am going to bed
- Signoff: e-star ()
gavinbaker: so i saw Fear_of_C cut out earlier
gavinbaker: nobody else in the channel is paying attention / participating? Scudmissile, TimHwang, paulproteus ?
- Signoff: Scudmissile (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
gavinbaker: anyway, i guess we RESOLVED the amendment process per e-star above
- Scudmissile (n=Scudmiss@220.127.116.11) has joined channel #freeculture
Scudmissil: sorry... xchat crashed... was someone trying to contact me?
gavinbaker: Scudmissile: i was just pinging you to see if you were still paying attention / participating
Scudmissil: i wasn't really paying attention, sorry
gavinbaker: skyfaller, did you have any commendts about this amendment process?
skyfaller: I'd just like to say that writing stuff by committee really sucks
gavinbaker: skyfaller: yup, but it seems to be marginally more effective than writing stuff by crowdsourcing
gavinbaker: viz. the fact that nobody edited the draft of these bylaws for like a year while they sat on the wiki
skyfaller: very true
skyfaller stabs himself in the face
peabo: no, neither one is idea .. you crowdsource but you need an editor in chief who refines all the input prior to having the synchonous discussion
gavinbaker: peabo: It sounds like you're trying to describe an organization. Would you like help writing bylaws?
peabo: ha ha, I got into this rather belatedly
gavinbaker: skyfaller: comments on amendment process?
skyfaller: can we summarize what we're resolving?
gavinbaker: elections every 6 months
gavinbaker: 1 is timed with the board elections
gavinbaker: 1 is 6mo later
gavinbaker: Coordinator schedules them
gavinbaker: Coordinator announces call for proposed amendments 60 days in advance
gavinbaker: deadline to submit proposals is 30 days later
gavinbaker: proposals have to be sponsored by 2 chapters
skyfaller: sounds reasonable to me
gavinbaker: everybody gets 30 days to review everything, talk it over, etc.
gavinbaker: 3/4 vote to ratify amendments
skyfaller: I think the org can survive for a semester with 5 board members instead of 7, especially if there was competition for the seats and those are the 5 best candidates
gavinbaker: i still think the 6mo is unnecessary, but it might be good at first when we're doing bugfixes
mllerustad: gavinbaker: Yeah, I have a feeling we're gonna need it, at least the first year.
skyfaller: yeah, there may be serious problems that become obvious after our first semester under these bylaws
gavinbaker: skyfaller: the 2 losers can get more experience on the core team :) :)
gavinbaker: so RESOLVED: ^^ ?
skyfaller: ... some are more equal than others, huh?
gavinbaker: anybody else?
gavinbaker: OH SH---
mllerustad: (voting system implodes)
Log file closed at: 8/9/07 12:00:01 AM
Log file opened at: 8/9/07 12:00:01 AM
skyfaller breaks the universe
peabo: skyfaller: good thing you're going into law school, not math
gavinbaker: skyfaller: i didn't see ?def skyfaller is chuck norris anywhere
skyfaller: that's just because jibot is busted
gavinbaker: well, looks like that passes
gavinbaker: and that's also the 4 hour mark for this meeting
gavinbaker: we got through 3 time as many sections as yesterday
skyfaller: I still would rather have shoved a red-hot cactus up my nose
gavinbaker: the only thing we've never discussed, yet, is dissolution
gavinbaker: which hopefully shouldn't take too long
skyfaller: there were comments about that
gavinbaker: and we have to populate that Definitions section
peabo: well, we nosed around the question of that is the trigeering event
mllerustad: And Core team...
gavinbaker: then we'll revisit 5.1.1
mllerustad: And the interim resolution for when we don't have a Coordinator.
gavinbaker: which is where we hit the snags about voting for the board
gavinbaker: mllerustad: right, the Core Team, which is in the comments, which is the last thing we'll work through.
gavinbaker: so let's schedule the next, and get this up on the wiki
peabo: board acts as coordination, en ensemble
mllerustad: gavinbaker: But it's a very structural change, like, it's its own article...
mllerustad: I dunno. It seems like big things like that ought to go with the rest.
peabo: gavin, I have a backup log extending to whenever it was I logged in earlier
peabo: like around 5 PM
mllerustad: peabo: That may very well be the solution, I just want it debated and formalized :)
gavinbaker: peabo: feel free to mail it to me
gavinbaker: i do have a log but it's all timestamp'd
gavinbaker: maybe that's good, tho, i dunno
gavinbaker: anyway, next meeting?
peabo: timestamps have a way to making it painfully obvious how slow this process is
gavinbaker: they also make the thing a lot bigger
peabo: see, now if you ran Linux you could delete the timestamps with a single command :-) :-) :-)
gavinbaker: peabo: i do!
gavinbaker: i could just find and replace
peabo: well, /bin/cut is your friend
gavinbaker: peabo: not just Linux, i run GNU/Linux :D
gavinbaker: scheduling the next meeting...?
peabo: true, as an FSF member i know that
gavinbaker: oh, the lulz
skyfaller: alright, Sunday again?
peabo: grepping for insight is my dream
peabo: Sunday: ok
gavinbaker: we already have a meeting Sunday at 5
gavinbaker: we could do earlier or later
peabo: oh, the collab tools?
gavinbaker: peabo: aye
skyfaller: Karen can make it if we do earlier
peabo: doing it earlier makes for a definite time limit
peabo: speaking of collab tools, you shoudl look at the one they used for discussing GPLv3 (not that you'll ever actually need to draft bylaws again :-)
skyfaller: 3pm EDT?
skyfaller: peabo: we've been trying to get that software for months
peabo: you should ahve been able to get it, what went wrong?
skyfaller: Stet is a pain in the ass
gavinbaker: peabo: we have it, it's hard to make it work
peabo: ok, I admit I haven't used it myself :-(
skyfaller: it's never been packaged
gavinbaker: everybody who said they would package it, or help us install it, flakes out or disappears
gavinbaker: we could do 3 pm EDT on Sunday
gavinbaker: but that's only 2 hours
peabo: 3 PM: ok
urgyen: does asheesh come to this channel?
skyfaller: 2pm EDT then
gavinbaker: and so far none of these meetings have lastes less than 4
gavinbaker: urgyen: paulproteus is the one you seek
skyfaller: people on the west coast just have to drag themselves out of bed by 11am
gavinbaker: or not come, which has been their strategy so far
gavinbaker: except the first meeting
skyfaller: urgyen: don't engage him in a duel or something, we need him ;-)
urgyen: I got an gtalk invite
urgyen: just wondered why
skyfaller: ... I'm not sure what you mean
gavinbaker: skyfaller: name the time homie
skyfaller: 2pm EDT!
gavinbaker: send t3h emails
urgyen: gtalk knows jabber too
peabo: 2 pm: ok
peabo: my node today is zelazny.freenode.net -- I have read stories by him, cool :-)
- gavinbaker has set the topic on channel #freeculture to FreeCulture.org: students for free culture | http://freeculture.org/ | Bug tracker: http://launchpad.net/web/+bugs | In case of downtime: http://fcostatus.wordpress.com/ | Meeting to discuss communication/collaboration tools for FC.o, 2007-08-12 at 5 pm EDT: http://wiki.freeculture.org/2007-08-12 | Bylaws RC2 meeting, Wednesday 2007-08-12 at 2 pm EDT: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws
Log file closed at: 8/9/07 12:15:22 AM