This is a mailing list thread to provide instruction for changes to the Hive13 bylaws that will get voted on in the annual meeting on July 16th. Changes and withdrawals will be closed 1 week before elections.
I’ve noticed a lot of discussion about bylaw changes, which is good.
Remember that the originator is the “owner” of those proposed changes and has the final say in the final version of their proposed changes to be voted on.
I’d suggest that the owner of the thread summarize the final version of their proposal within the thread with some kind of indicator like “Final version to be voted on”.
If you feel that the changes are not what you like you are free to not vote yes for them. Discussion is good, but arguing about how something is “wrong” can spiral into a flame war. I’m happy to step in if things get out of hand. Remember this is a public facing discussion and outsiders could view us as petty trolls.
If we begin to develop forks of the same proposal we will have to figure out how to handle that. “Member X proposes a bylaw change for 5 wardens and member Y proposes bylaw changes for 4 wardens”. Perhaps we identify how different proposals will conflict and then have a vote between conflicting ones?
Try to keep things cvil and remember that you probably will see the other person, in real life, in the near future.
Abuse will not be tolerated, and will be dealt with appropriately. We all do this for fun, but I’m happy to turn this thing around and go home if you don’t behave. . . .
As we approach the annual meeting where the votes will be cast, I’d like to list some instructions/dates.
The owner of the proposed change should summarize the “final” version and lock it down before the frozen date to allow it to be placed into the voting system. Keep in mind that the owner “owns” the proposal and has final say in what they have proposed.
I’d suggest an email in the Groups thread about the proposal with some kind of initial line "Final version of bylaw change proposal: "
Discussion can continue but no changes to the proposal after the frozen date.
The frozen date is July 8th at 11:59 pm (midnight can get confusing).
REMINDER: Please be advised, the deadline to submit votes/nominations for the annual meeting is tonight at 11:59 PM. The most recent complete version of any proposed bylaws changes will be the version on the ballot.
- Ian B.
This deadline is now passed. As far as I can see, we have 9 proposed bylaws amendments:
Proposed by Kevin McLeod:
Clarification of Membership Levels and Dues Sections
Remove references to laser minutes
Election of Board of Directors
Proposed by Greg Arnold:
Rewrite Warden Addendum
Replace Votes section
Proposed by Daniel McNamara:
Additionally, we have the vote proposed by Dave Velzy on behalf of Leadership to resolve the potential conflict between the two changes to the Votes section.
If I missed anything please let me know as soon as possible, Ballots will be going out sometime tomorrow.
- Ian B.
There additionally needs to be a vote that is contingent upon Greg’s Warden Addendum changes passing:
If the proposed changes to the warden addendum are approved, replace “Wardens are appointed and removed by the Chief Operating Officer (COO)” with “Wardens shall be Appointed or Removed by an Act of the Board of Directors. The Chief Operating Officer (COO) is responsible for making appropriate recommendations to the board for Warden Appointment or Removal based on the needs of the organization.”
Okay, found it. I’ll add it to the list. For future reference it helps to maintain my dwindling sanity if each proposal, even contingent ones, have their own email thread.
- Ian B.
Hmm… Do you want me to create one? It seemed like it would just clutter the mailing list.
No need now, I’ve already got it on the list. But the volume of mail discussing the bylaws changes is such that combing through it all looking for counter-proposals is problematic and frequently leaves me in awkward position of trying to determine if something was an actual vote proposal or simply a suggestion to the original proposer.
- Ian B.
Hence the original instruction post about “talk away” but each individual proposal should have its own thread with a summary at the end of “this is the final version”.
Sounds like things went a bit squiggly.
Sorry for all the trouble.
I suspect there was/is some resistance to that due to original authors not supporting the discussed changes.
Sorry, I meant it like the originators had final say on what was actually voted on, regardless of what the people said in the discussion.