Site Logo

 
It is currently Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:26 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Draft Bylaws
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 5:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:53 am
Posts: 928
Location: Eagan, MN
paulsobczak wrote:
I think the vagueness is what I have a problem with, to me it does not get to the heart of the matter, people over using the space or exploiting it. Using the phrase "significant personal gains" makes it feel like that could be used to kick someone out of the group for making things in the space.

The vagueness is exactly the point. What it feels like has no relevance here. We couldn't kick somebody out for making things; that'd be ridiculous (unless they're making pipe bombs or methamphetamine or whatever). We COULD kick somebody out for making things to SELL, and we WOULD need new members to understand that.

You can't legislate good judgement. Bylaws are necessary, but they aren't what will make the organization thrive. Individuals make a community. Likewise, abuse & bad faith can cause it to fail pretty expediently. If we need to be able to make a judgement call about kicking out Joe Snowshoe Assembly Line, since he's been pocketing all his sales cash while paying members are quitting since they can't get their own projects done, then we need something concrete to point to, which he agreed to when he joined up. This section right here, sir, is the point at which you've breached your contract with everyone else. See it? Make reparations or be removed.

And again: This may all be a moot argument. Right now, we need to concentrate on what it means to be a not-for-profit concern.

(you guys are posting replies too fast, btw)

_________________
my workplace blog
my builder blog
my personal blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Draft Bylaws
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:06 am
Posts: 1219
Location: NE Minneapolis
there's a LOT we're not defining specifically, simply because we don't have the situation sused out yet, nor can we until we cross those bridges.

by that argument we should strike the entire thing.

this is a formative document intended to provide guidance to creation of acting policy. it is NOT acting policy. it is the direction we want policy to go in, not specific items.

i'm headed off to dinner and orchestra, will look in after.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Draft Bylaws
PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2009 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:53 am
Posts: 928
Location: Eagan, MN
Related... I've now been assured in varied and convincing terms that it's possible to be a member of a nonprofit group and be paid to perform certain functions for that group. Maybe I couldn't simultaneously be president of the governing board AND be employed as shop manager, for example, but that's fine. (Shop manager wins that showdown easy, btw.)

_________________
my workplace blog
my builder blog
my personal blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Draft Bylaws
PostPosted: Mon May 11, 2009 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:53 am
Posts: 928
Location: Eagan, MN
*threadbump*

Anybody have more to say about the bylaws before the next business meeting, this coming Wednesday night? We'll be making any last-minute changes, then voting on them -- hopefully they'll be OK'd by Thursday, so we can get busy taking our next steps. (Nonprofit HO!)

(no, not ho', just "HO!" like 1/3rd of what Santa says... oh never mind)

_________________
my workplace blog
my builder blog
my personal blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Draft Bylaws
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:31 am
Posts: 10
One thing jumps out at me:
Quote:
Section 3.E.4: Election shall be by simple majority of the Balloting Members of each round of balloting. In any round of voting where no member gains a majority of votes, candidates with the least number of votes shall be dropped, and the election run again. This shall be repeated until a majority is achieved or only two candidates remain. If the election results in a tie, discussions will be reopened. If three rounds yield the same results, the election of this officer only shall be tabled, nominations reopened, and election held again at the next regular meeting.

I think it should be changed to the following to eliminate ambiguity about how many candidate(s) are eliminated by falloff: "Election shall be by simple majority of the Balloting Members of each round of balloting. In any round of voting where no member gains a majority of votes, the candidate with the least number of votes shall be dropped, and the election run again. This shall be repeated until a majority is achieved or only two candidates remain. If the election results in a tie, discussions will be reopened. If three rounds yield the same results, the election of this officer only shall be tabled, nominations reopened, and election held again at the next regular meeting."

I deleted what used to be the second because I hadn't seen the Constitution document (it wasn't linked in the email that went out today).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Draft Bylaws
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 3:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:06 am
Posts: 1219
Location: NE Minneapolis
hmmm i believe that was the discussion in the meeting, i may have typoed it when i typed it up. anyone else recall?

--theo and i discussed over IM, intent was the candidate per our recollection, although draft that night was candidates. edited to rflect that, if anyoen has a different recollection speak up fast so absentee ballots will reflect that.

anyone who's received an absentee ballot already, please email/phone/twitter etc the person and make certain their vote is still appropriate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Draft Bylaws
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:53 am
Posts: 928
Location: Eagan, MN
ckthorp wrote:
I deleted what used to be the second because I hadn't seen the Constitution document (it wasn't linked in the email that went out today)

Sorry about that. I didn't think to link the Constitution since it was already ratified.
(that mailing was a pain in the ass, btw; it's a small wonder it got sent at all :P )

_________________
my workplace blog
my builder blog
my personal blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Draft Bylaws
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:31 am
Posts: 10
Theo wrote:
Sorry about that. I didn't think to link the Constitution since it was already ratified.
(that mailing was a pain in the ass, btw; it's a small wonder it got sent at all :P )

I should have been checking up more often! Heh. I'll admit that I thought things seemed to be progressing pretty slowly when I signed up for the board in January. That mailing was a great way to let people know that the effort was still underway. So thanks and hats off to you for making that mailing go and for getting this community organized!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Draft Bylaws
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 8:58 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:14 pm
Posts: 1444
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
metis wrote:
hmmm i believe that was the discussion in the meeting, i may have typoed it when i typed it up. anyone else recall?

--theo and i discussed over IM, intent was the candidate per our recollection, although draft that night was candidates. edited to rflect that, if anyoen has a different recollection speak up fast so absentee ballots will reflect that.

anyone who's received an absentee ballot already, please email/phone/twitter etc the person and make certain their vote is still appropriate.


My recollection is that we chose "candidates." I.e.: Five people run for a position. Two are tied with four votes each, one has three votes, one has two votes, the last person has one vote. The three candidates with the least number of votes would be dropped, correct?

When discussing this, I believe we were previously thinking about scenarios where there might be three candidates, so "candidate" made sense in that context.

...Though I might be mistaken(!?).

_________________
612-293-MAKE World Community Grid Team Page | Blog | Promo Flyers | Dues Info
Active Topics | Twitter Page | TCM Photos | View Your Posts | YIM waynoid | AIM wammie777


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Draft Bylaws
PostPosted: Tue May 12, 2009 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:53 am
Posts: 928
Location: Eagan, MN
Well, I don't remember if we settled on "candidates", but that's how it got written; it's now corrected to the singular.
Also, bike shed.

_________________
my workplace blog
my builder blog
my personal blog


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL Flash Games