MJ Ray writes ("Re: Publically viewable resolutions and increasing the
visibility of board activity"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > by T-5 days: Meeting reminder announcement, sent by email,
> > containing complete li
MJ Ray writes ("Re: Publically viewable resolutions and increasing the
visibility of board activity"):
> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > by T-5 days: Meeting reminder announcement, sent by email,
> > containing complete li
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Draft resolution 2007-01-16.iwj.1. This is pursuant to MJ Ray's
> "membership communication" item and should probably be treated as a
> proposed amendment to that part of MJ Ray's proposal:
> [...]
> 3. It is good practice to set a deadline for submission o
Thinking about reports from officers, etc., leads me to suggest the
following addition to my proposal:
T-7 days: Latest non-emergency agenda item submission deadline,
to be submitted in accordance with other instructions
from the Secretary.
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Publically viewable resolutions and increasing
> the visibility of board activity"):
>> Perhaps a better way would be : must be seconded (I don't know the next
>> term) and thirded ;0 by a board member?
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Publically viewable resolutions and increasing the
visibility of board activity"):
> Perhaps a better way would be : must be seconded (I don't know the next
> term) and thirded ;0 by a board member?
>
> A vote of the board can be di
> 6. For emergency agenda items, or any items not submitted in the proper
>manner or time, which a board member feels should be considered
>despite the irregularity, the board will first vote whether to
>treat it as an urgent item and deal with it straight away; failing
>that it wi
No-one seemse to have commented on this, so:
Draft resolution 2007-01-16.iwj.1. This is pursuant to MJ Ray's
"membership communication" item and should probably be treated as a
proposed amendment to that part of MJ Ray's proposal:
1. SPI board members would like to be fully prepared and briefed
Neil McGovern writes ("Publically viewable resolutions and increasing the
visibility of board activity"):
> This is a short summary on how resolutions will be accepted by the
> secretary, and various ways in which to improve the membership
> participation i
[Joshua D. Drake]
> I don't see any reason why we can't just send a URL containing the
> agenda.
Based on personal experience with several organizations and projects,
I can assure you that the amount of people reading the content of an
email is a lot higher than the amount of people following an
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> So, using the analogy above, it says "Board meeting by Board of
> directors 7pm UTC Tuesday January 16th".
Keeping the analogy, that's like "concert by musicians". How many
readers of this list would go to an event advertised like that?
> What peo
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 16:00 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:52:08PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm not going to address your main point above in this email, but the
> > > recent meeting announcements, including the 3-day advanc
> that email. Admittedly it would be slightly preferable if at least the
> summary schedule of the meeting was included in the email, requiring a
> visit to the URL only to see full resolution texts, but either way it's
> still a reasonable means of informing the SPI membership. Speaking only
> for
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:52:08PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not going to address your main point above in this email, but the
> > recent meeting announcements, including the 3-day advance notice for the
> > December meeting, did have more than 0% inf
Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not going to address your main point above in this email, but the
> recent meeting announcements, including the 3-day advance notice for the
> December meeting, did have more than 0% information on the agenda. [...]
What's the point of posting the a
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:01:33PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 01:31:33PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > It is unnecessary to link member participation deadlines with meeting
> > > notice periods.
> >
> > Now I'm confused. If a notice of t
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:01:33PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> If including 100% of the details has obvious negative effects
> (restrictions on participation) but 99% does not, then include 99%.
> That's still a massive improvement on the recent 0%s. If anything in
> the 1% is new but not urgent, ackno
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 01:31:33PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > It is unnecessary to link member participation deadlines with meeting
> > notice periods.
>
> Now I'm confused. If a notice of the meeting doesn't contain the full
> agenda, what use is it apart f
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 01:31:33PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> It is unnecessary to link member participation deadlines with meeting
> notice periods.
>
Now I'm confused. If a notice of the meeting doesn't contain the full
agenda, what use is it apart from just being a simple reminder?
Neil
--
Neil
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 02:37:00AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Taken from the by-laws:
> > > "If the board decides not to consider an issue, the membership may
> > > vote on the resolution."
> > >
> > > Now,
Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 10:03:48AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] For example, there's a public participation standing item at
> > tonight's council meeting. 15 minutes max of a ~120 minute meeting,
> > no notice required, no format required, but it's e
Folks,
I'm in favor of this proposal in general, but would like to make sure the
language is absent potential minefields. In particular:
a) we need to preserve the board's ability to make "emergency" votes for
things involving external deadlines (like taxes and conferences) when they
can't b
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 04:22:56AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I suggest changing this to resolutions must be submitted 24 hours in
> advance of the publication of the meeting announcement which must
> occur at least 4 days before the meeting and include the full text of
> the resolutions to be d
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 04:22:56AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Jan 2007, Neil McGovern wrote:
> > The only real changes from how I've been doing things are:
> > * resolutions must now be sent at least 48h in advance.
> > - Previously it's been 24h. Before I was secretary, it was none
On Mon, 01 Jan 2007, Neil McGovern wrote:
> The only real changes from how I've been doing things are:
> * resolutions must now be sent at least 48h in advance.
> - Previously it's been 24h. Before I was secretary, it was none.
> - 48h has been picked as it's what's specified in 2004-10-15-dbg.
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 02:37:00AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Taken from the by-laws:
> > "If the board decides not to consider an issue, the membership may
> > vote on the resolution."
> >
> > Now, for a vote, I need a proposal, which brings in:
>
> Yo
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 09:42:17AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MJ Ray) writes:
> > > 1. it lengthens a no-proposals-allowed period before the meeting
> > > again. This deadline is new this year and is unwelcome.
> > ...
> > > more notice
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 10:03:48AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Why does the board seem to be against postponing some things, yet the
> debian Spain trademark has been postponed many many times?
We're not happy about that one, let me tell you. We are trying to get
legal advice from our lawyer for quite
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 10:13:44AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I agree. Therefore, I don't understand why one would add dependencies
> like 'all communications submitted' to the 'sending the agenda' task.
> The board cannot control submissions, so it makes agenda publication
> even less robust.
The in
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A deadline for proposals makes complete and perfect sense.
Why?
In other messages, I explain how other meetings send out their
business details before all member contributions have arrived.
> Procedure is not red tape when done from a productivity
Jimmy Kaplowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we are to give more notice of meetings including the business that
> will be conducted at them, we clearly need to have a firm cutoff after
> which proposals received will be deferred to a future meeting. Otherwise
> members could have a reasonable co
Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MJ Ray) writes:
> > 1. it lengthens a no-proposals-allowed period before the meeting
> > again. This deadline is new this year and is unwelcome.
> ...
> > more notice of meetings (including business)
>
> How should I reconcile these tw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (MJ Ray) writes:
> Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The only real changes from how I've been doing things are:
>> * resolutions must now be sent at least 48h in advance.
>> - Previously it's been 24h. Before I was secretary, it was none.
>
> 1. it lengthens a no-prop
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 02:37:00AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The only real changes from how I've been doing things are:
> > * resolutions must now be sent at least 48h in advance.
> > - Previously it's been 24h. Before I was secretary, it was none.
>
> 1. it lengthens a no-proposals-allowed perio
> Then this policy is a contradiction because:
>
> > The only real changes from how I've been doing things are:
> > * resolutions must now be sent at least 48h in advance.
> > - Previously it's been 24h. Before I was secretary, it was none.
>
> 1. it lengthens a no-proposals-allowed period bef
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Taken from the by-laws:
> "If the board decides not to consider an issue, the membership may
> vote on the resolution."
>
> Now, for a vote, I need a proposal, which brings in:
You already have a proposal to the board, else there would not be a
resolu
You managed to snip the bit of my mail where I stated:
| This next section may be added to the above, but I need to check
| through our by-laws properly before it's implemented.
On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 06:00:29PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > This is not an amendment - see paragraph 4 or Article Five
> However, this red-tape wrangling is beside the main point: why is the
> board making member participation even more complicated?
I don't think they are. I think they are trying to make it manageable.
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Please, improve member communication before adopting these sort of new
Michael Schultheiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > If implemented, this seems likely to cause many more membership votes:
> > "If the board decides not to consider an issue, the membership may
> > vote on the resolution."
>
> This is already mentioned in Article Five of the bylaws.
MJ Ray wrote:
> If implemented, this seems likely to cause many more membership votes:
> "If the board decides not to consider an issue, the membership may
> vote on the resolution."
This is already mentioned in Article Five of the bylaws.
> > If the board will not consider a resolution, it may b
> I think this barrier contradicts the bylaws. They say the secretary
> shall "present to the membership at any meetings any communication
> addressed to the Secretary of the organization". Actually, why has the
> secretary not been reporting such communications at meetings?
Hmm.. good point. I g
Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To help the membership to have a greater involvement in the board, and
> it's practices; with immediate effect, I'm implementing the following in
> how I accept resolutions for board meetings. For a resolution to be
> valid and accepted, it must meet requi
Hi all,
This is a short summary on how resolutions will be accepted by the
secretary, and various ways in which to improve the membership
participation in SPI and the board accountability.
Some discussion has occured on the spi-private mailing list as to how
the opensource.org resolution has been
43 matches
Mail list logo
