[Members] Metaproposals 3 and 4 - Council Candidate Limitations and Appointment Appeals

Nicolas Vérité nicolas.verite at gmail.com
Thu Oct 8 04:16:26 CDT 2009


Continuing on proposals:
* don't accept the candidates who have more 'no' than 'yes'. I think
it's obvious.
* we also have to find a way to limit the number of candidates and/or
elected member from one enterprise and/or community, in order to avoid
the actual problematic situation where we got two members of one
enterprise in the Council, and one in the Board (so 3 out of 8 to 10
places)

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:57, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> Since the Board has to propose changes to the Bylaws, I can only propose
> them to the Board. But I thought I'd do so here, so we could discuss them,
> and I've numbered them as 3 and 4 to avoid confusion with Jack's numbering.
>
> 3) Remove the limitation for Council candidates (and members) to be Members.
>
> We have some highly active participants who are not members. There's also a
> fair number of people who'd make excellent Council members from the IETF,
> who might not even have heard of the XSF. (Which is in itself a problem,
> mind).
>
> I believe the membership is able to make a decision on who is qualified for
> a position on the Council themselves. (Although given they voted me on, I
> can see arguments against).
>
> 4) Include an appeal process for Board appointments.
>
> Certain decisions, including Board decisions such as Section 6.2 appointment
> of officers, Section 4.7 appointment of directors, etc, can be currently
> carried out without recourse to the membership. I think this is fine, but
> appointments in particular could prove contentious, and allow for a Board to
> potentially become somewhat insular and self-serving. I hasten to add that I
> do not consider this to be the case with this Board, which is precisely why
> I thought we should get that in place.
>
> I propose that these should be, post-facto, announced to the membership, and
> if any member objects, there is a period of X days (of, in practise,
> discussion on the mailing list) for them to collect Y further objections,
> which will therefore cause the decision to be remanded to the membership.
>
> I considered proposing an appeal process for members meetings, but it's
> really not clear to me when such a process might end - unless Y is a
> majority, it'd be possible to effectively prevent any decisions being made.
> If we're only appealing Board decisions, Y can be smaller.
>
> My suggestions would be 10 days, and 10%, primarily to match figures in
> Section 3.3 and 3.4.
>
> It's possibly easiest to place this as a general clause in Section 6.2 and
> Section 4.7.
>
> Note that an appeal process for Council decisions belongs in XEP-0001.
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
>  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
>  - http://dave.cridland.net/
> Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
>



-- 
Nicolas Vérité (Nÿco) mailto:nicolas.verite at gmail.com
Jabber ID : xmpp:nyco at jabber.fr
http://linuxfr.org/ - http://fr.wikipedia.org/ - http://www.jabberfr.org/
http://xmpp.org - http://april.org/  - http://qsos.org/


More information about the Members mailing list