Talk:Free Geek Bylaws - Revision history

Owenja: removed one-year terms for volunteer representatives

2011-05-20T04:04:08Z

removed one-year terms for volunteer representatives

Rfs: /* Current revision changes here (Spring 2011) */

2011-05-19T02:29:49Z

Current revision changes here (Spring 2011)

Rfs: /* Notes on current revisions */

2011-05-19T02:14:48Z

Notes on current revisions

Rfs at 02:13, 19 May 2011

2011-05-19T02:13:26Z

Rfs: /* Current revision changes here */

2011-05-19T02:11:50Z

Current revision changes here

Rfs at 02:11, 19 May 2011

2011-05-19T02:11:11Z

Kathey: removed my original statement of process problem.

2011-05-19T00:44:25Z

removed my original statement of process problem.

Kathey: response to process concern discussion.

2011-05-18T21:04:42Z

response to process concern discussion.

Stephenforbush at 20:37, 18 May 2011

2011-05-18T20:37:08Z

Kathey: procedural point in bylaws discussion pages.

2011-05-18T17:58:37Z

procedural point in bylaws discussion pages.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 '''Article III Section 2''':  The board shall consist of no less than 7 members, and no more than X members.  The number of members will be decided by the board.  At least 25% of board positions will be filled by volunteer representatives, with a minimum of 2 representatives elected.
 '''Article III Section 4''':  Board members will be selected in one of two ways.  Prospective members who represent interests or skill that are important to Free Geek may be appointed by the existing board as it sees fit.  Board members designated as "Volunteer Representatives" will be elected once annually, at a convention held for this purpose.  Volunteers may cast ballots for the representative of their choice.  The board is in charge of ensuring a fair and democratic election, though it may delegate responsibility to another body if needed.  All candidates seeking to become volunteer representatives must have completed 30 hours of volunteer work within the past year in order to be considered.  The board is responsible for creating all other policies in regard to the election of its members.
@@ Line 55: / Line 53: @@
 [[User:Rfs|RfS]] 02:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:29, 19 May 2011
Line 49:		Line 49:

	=== Please add more notes here as needed ===		=== Please add more notes here as needed ===
		+
		+	Did we decide that volunteer members only served one year? I assumed we'd stick to 2 year terms for everyone (with the assumption that elections could happen yearly and staggered terms).
		+
		+	I would recommend against setting the floor number of board members at seven. We can still try to keep the number that high, but if we have a problem getting enough people to serve we should not be in violation our bylaws (or if someone quits, etc.)
		+
		+	[[User:Rfs\|RfS]] 02:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 ----
-PROCEDURAL POINT:  (I raised process concerns about Steve F's proposed language below. He clarified above, and I deleted my original note here.)
+PROCEDURAL POINT:  (I raised process concerns about Steve F's proposed language above. He clarified above, and I deleted my original note here.)
 --[[User:Kathey|kathey]] 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 === Please add more notes here as needed ===

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== Current revision changes here ==
+You can use the "+" link above to add notes to this page.
 Proposed bylaws/changes- Stephen Forbush, May 2011.  NOTE:  This is NOT a final draft; some of the numbers will need to be changed, and the election procedures have not yet been fully discussed, and I'm sure there are numerous other changes that need to be made.  These rewrites in no way reflect the opinions of current board members (or really anyone else for that matter)!  I am simply drafting up sample language that could be used if/when we decided to formally rewrite the bylaws.  Feel free to comment, but please let people know if you have changed any language in the sample bylaws.
 -Steve
@@ Line 35: / Line 49: @@
 === Please add more notes here as needed ===

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 PROCEDURAL POINT:  (I raised process concerns about Steve F's proposed language below. He clarified above, and I deleted my original note here.)
 --[[User:Kathey|kathey]] 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 == Older Revisions ==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Thanks Steve, Describing the exact sources of the text makes it easier for anyone to take the next step with it. It is problematic to be overly humble. This line of yours is/was causing difficulty: "These rewrites in no way reflect the opinions of current board members (or really anyone else for that matter)!" --[[User:Kathey|kathey]] 21:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
+== Current revision changes here ==
 Proposed bylaws/changes- Stephen Forbush, May 2011.  NOTE:  This is NOT a final draft; some of the numbers will need to be changed, and the election procedures have not yet been fully discussed, and I'm sure there are numerous other changes that need to be made.  These rewrites in no way reflect the opinions of current board members (or really anyone else for that matter)!  I am simply drafting up sample language that could be used if/when we decided to formally rewrite the bylaws.  Feel free to comment, but please let people know if you have changed any language in the sample bylaws.
 -Steve
@@ Line 36: / Line 19: @@
-'''----------best guess at separation point between two generations of text: ---------'''
+=== Notes on current revisions ===
 Article III, Section 4 says that the council selects the board. This makes Section 10 kind of useless since, as written, it says that the board can only remove directors ''elected or appointed by the board''. Oops! We probably should ammend this as shown here, no?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, 18 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Thanks Steve, Describing the exact sources of the text makes it easier for anyone to take the next step with it. It is problematic to be overly humble. This line of yours is/was causing difficulty: "These rewrites in no way reflect the opinions of current board members (or really anyone else for that matter)!" --[[User:Kathey\|kathey]] 21:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
		+
	Kathy,		Kathy,
	I was instructed by Laurel 1.0 and Anne (board members) to draft up some language that could at some point be discussed/voted on by the board, and place it on the wiki so that it may be accessed by everyone. I was tasked with identifying bylaws that were out of date, and rewriting them so as to reflect any governance changes that have been made. These rewrites do not reflect what I have "heard", rather they reflect the official changes that were voted on and adopted by the board and council at their last meetings. The basis for these changes can be found in the minutes of those meetings. These bylaws need to be changed, regardless of what language ends up being used.		I was instructed by Laurel 1.0 and Anne (board members) to draft up some language that could at some point be discussed/voted on by the board, and place it on the wiki so that it may be accessed by everyone. I was tasked with identifying bylaws that were out of date, and rewriting them so as to reflect any governance changes that have been made. These rewrites do not reflect what I have "heard", rather they reflect the official changes that were voted on and adopted by the board and council at their last meetings. The basis for these changes can be found in the minutes of those meetings. These bylaws need to be changed, regardless of what language ends up being used.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:37, 18 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	Kathy,
		+	I was instructed by Laurel 1.0 and Anne (board members) to draft up some language that could at some point be discussed/voted on by the board, and place it on the wiki so that it may be accessed by everyone. I was tasked with identifying bylaws that were out of date, and rewriting them so as to reflect any governance changes that have been made. These rewrites do not reflect what I have "heard", rather they reflect the official changes that were voted on and adopted by the board and council at their last meetings. The basis for these changes can be found in the minutes of those meetings. These bylaws need to be changed, regardless of what language ends up being used.
		+
		+	As I said in my introduction, these changes are simply sample language that may or may not be used. I sent out the link to this page on the council so that others may see what changes are being proposed. The whole point of me drafting these changes was so that they could be sent out to groups, added to agendas, and discussed, voted on, etc.
		+
		+	I apologize if any of this was unclear; I thought my introduction was fairly straight forward.
		+	-Steve F. 5/18/2011
		+	----
		+
	PROCEDURAL POINT: Bylaws policies are too sensitive for any ambiguity between authors. Because this wiki does not have clear structure for discussion, it is not a great place for sorting dialog. I guessed at the location of a separation line between texts below. It would be better if the most recent notes were from a recognized committee. Then there would be more understanding of the judgment behind rough drafts. Steve may argue that these notes are based on what he heard at recent board, council and transition committee meetings. (Which is what they look like it to me). Then just say so: "These are my notes on what I've heard discussed in recent meetings of ... These notes need to be reviewed by..." Then post them to the appropriate lists for meeting minutes, and/or get them on the next meeting's agenda. That is the best way to get others' memories of what was actually said and agreed, or proposed and left for future work, etc. That would separate out proposals from the note taker, versus proposals from the meeting outcome.		PROCEDURAL POINT: Bylaws policies are too sensitive for any ambiguity between authors. Because this wiki does not have clear structure for discussion, it is not a great place for sorting dialog. I guessed at the location of a separation line between texts below. It would be better if the most recent notes were from a recognized committee. Then there would be more understanding of the judgment behind rough drafts. Steve may argue that these notes are based on what he heard at recent board, council and transition committee meetings. (Which is what they look like it to me). Then just say so: "These are my notes on what I've heard discussed in recent meetings of ... These notes need to be reviewed by..." Then post them to the appropriate lists for meeting minutes, and/or get them on the next meeting's agenda. That is the best way to get others' memories of what was actually said and agreed, or proposed and left for future work, etc. That would separate out proposals from the note taker, versus proposals from the meeting outcome.
	--[[User:Kathey\|kathey]] 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)		--[[User:Kathey\|kathey]] 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-PROCEDURAL POINT: These most recent proposed additions and changes should be moved to the user's own talk page, leaving a noted link here. Policies, especially bylaws policies are too sensitive for any ambiguity between authors. If these were notes from an official committee, there would be more room for rough drafts. Because there is not clear structure for discussion, it is not a great place for sorting dialog. For example here, the notes of RFS, approved by formal procedure, and Steve who's comments are self designed, are not easily discernible without looking at history. There is not a separation between texts.
+PROCEDURAL POINT:  Bylaws policies are too sensitive for any ambiguity between authors. Because this wiki does not have clear structure for discussion, it is not a great place for sorting dialog. I guessed at the location of a separation line between texts below. It would be better if the most recent notes were from a recognized committee. Then there would be more understanding of the judgment behind rough drafts. Steve may argue that these notes are based on what he heard at recent board, council and transition committee meetings. (Which is what they look like it to me). Then just say so: "These are my notes on what I've heard discussed in recent meetings of ... These notes need to be reviewed by..." Then post them to the appropriate lists for meeting minutes, and/or get them on the next meeting's agenda. That is the best way to get others' memories of what was actually said and agreed, or proposed and left for future work, etc. That would separate out proposals from the note taker, versus proposals from the meeting outcome.
 --[[User:Kathey|kathey]] 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 Proposed bylaws/changes- Stephen Forbush, May 2011.  NOTE:  This is NOT a final draft; some of the numbers will need to be changed, and the election procedures have not yet been fully discussed, and I'm sure there are numerous other changes that need to be made.  These rewrites in no way reflect the opinions of current board members (or really anyone else for that matter)!  I am simply drafting up sample language that could be used if/when we decided to formally rewrite the bylaws.  Feel free to comment, but please let people know if you have changed any language in the sample bylaws.
@@ Line 19: / Line 23: @@
 The bylaws I have modified are the ones in most obvious need of revision.  Most of the other bylaws deal with board policies that are not specifically addressed by the governance changes being proposed.  These are probably best left for revision after new board members have been elected.