Hi, :-) On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 04:42, David Nelson <comme...@traduction.biz> wrote: > Hi Charles, SC guys :-) > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:23, Charles-H. Schulz > <charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: >> David, as usual, please feel free to review the language... thanks! >> >> -- >> Charles-H. Schulz
I added some numbering to the notes to allow for easier discussion here... http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws [REVIEWER'S NOTE 01: MAYBE MOVE THE 4 DEFINITIONS BELOW TO THE DEFINITIONS SECTION IN 1.1 ABOVE?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 02: MAYBE ADD A CLAUSE WITH SPECIFIC PROVISOS ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 03: SO WHAT IS THE SITUATION REGARDING THIS?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 04: THE TERM "COMMUNITY" COULD USEFULLY BE DEFINED IN THE DEFINITIONS SECTION?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 05: HOW LONG?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 06: COULD THERE MAYBE BE A SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT FOR TAKING IN NEW MEMBERS FROM THE COMMUNITY WHO WERE NOT INVOLVED IN OOo? IN ANY CASE, IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THIS PURPORTEDLY TEMPORARY PROVISION ABOUT OOo PEOPLE HARD-CODED INTO THE PERMANENT BYE-LAWS?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 07: PERHAPS THERE COULD BE A SPECIAL "complai...@documentfoundation.org" MAIL ADDRESS THAT WOULD BE THE PLACE TO SEND SUCH REQUESTS? THEREFORE, ONE COULD MAYBE MENTION THAT ADDRESS HERE AS THE PROCEDURAL RULE?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 08: PERHAPS THERE COULD BE A SPECIAL "res...@documentfoundation.org" MAIL ADDRESS THAT WOULD PROVIDE AN UNEQUIVOCAL RECORD OF WHETHER OR NOT A MEMBER IS DEEMED TO HAVE RESIGNED? THEREFORE, ONE COULD MAYBE MENTION THAT ADDRESS HERE AS THE PROCEDURAL RULE?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 09: IMHO, A LOT MORE SPECIFIC INFO ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE WOULD BE A GOOD THING... HOW MANY MEMBERS? MEETS HOW OFTEN? HOW WILL MEETINGS BE HELD (CONFCALL? http://code.google.com/p/openmeetings/ ?)? WHAT VOTING RULES? MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE EXPLICIT RULES CONCERNING APPEALS? HOW LONG IS THIS "INTERIM PERIOD"?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 10: PLEASE REFER TO MY NOTE IN THE "CONTINUITY OF MEMBERSHIP" SECTION REGARDING POSSIBILITY OF SPECIAL PROVISION FOR MEMBERSHIP DURING INITIAL PERIOD OF EXISTENCE OF THE PROJECT...] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 11: WHAT INTERVAL OF TIME? BETTER BE SPECIFIC?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 12: IMHO, THIS SECTION NEEDS A LOT OF CLARIFICATION AND AUGMENTATION... WHAT DIFFERENT KINDS OF THINGS WILL WE BE VOTING ABOUT? HOW WILL VOTES BE HELD (ONLINE VOTING SYSTEM, OR WHAT)? THIS IS THE SECTION I FIND MOST VAGUE AND NEEDING MORE ATTENTION... LACK OF CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE GUIDELINES IN THIS SECTION IS WHERE I FEEL MOST OF THE "CONTROVERSIAL" SITUATIONS MIGHT ARISE...] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 13: THIS SENTENCE WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON A DECISION ABOUT "STV"...] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 14: I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THIS SENTENCE. IS THIS A "MEETING OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS" OR A "MEETING OF THE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE"? DOES THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE HAVE TO BE ATTENDED PHYSICALLY, OR CAN WE USE AN ONLINE CONFERENCING SYSTEM LIKE http://www.gotomeeting.com/fec/ (ACCOUNT WOULD HAVE TO BE SPONSORED BY CITRIX ONLINE) OR http://code.google.com/p/openmeetings/ ?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 15: MORE GUIDELINES NEEDED ABOUT ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF POLLS/ELECTIONS/VOTES TO COVER THE VARIOUS SCENARIOS IN WHICH VOTING WILL BE USED AS A MEANS OF TAKING DECISIONS?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 16: SURELY A DECISION WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN ABOUT THIS BEFORE THE BYE-LAWS COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE DEFINITIVELY FINISHED? MORE COMMENTS BELOW ABOUT "STV"...] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 17: THIS SEEMS TO CONFLICT WITH THE TERMS OF http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws#Board_of_Directors AND IS MAYBE REDUNDANT HERE? OR REDUNDANT THERE? WHERE IS BEST TO COVER THIS?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 18: SURELY A DECISION WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN ABOUT THIS BEFORE THE BYE-LAWS COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE DEFINITIVELY FINISHED? "STV" COULD BE AN INTERESTING AND EFFECTIVE PART OF THE GOVERNANCE, BUT THEN IT WOULD NEED APPROPRIATE RULES AND PROCEDURES IN THIS SECTION...] [REVIEWERS NOTE 19: IMHO, THERE ARE UNDESIRABLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR TIED VOTES HERE, AS WELL AS VOTES PUSHED THROUGH BY ONLY A MINORITY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS (4 OUT OF 9). MAYBE MORE RULES NEEDED TO TRY AND ANTICIPATE ALL SITUATIONS?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 20: IMVHO, THE BYE-LAWS SHOULD ALSO CONTAIN PROCEDURES AND RULES GOVERNING CHANGES/AMENDMENTS TO THE BYE-LAWS THEMSELVES; FAILURE TO COVER THIS ISSUE CLEARLY AND DEFINITIVELY COULD GIVE RISE TO "CONTROVERSIAL SITUATIONS"...] HTH. :-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***