Re: Next step -- Deciding on output

OK, looks like there was no dissent on the draft agenda posted at
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-bylaws/2003/000011.html, or the
voting procedures, so let's start moving forward. I think we can use the
vorting procedures spelled out there for now, with the added provision that
all votes end after a maximum of four days.

Our first task is to decide on our output -- what we are going to submit to
the Board and the SPI membership at the conclusion of our committee.

I suggest the following:

1. A proposal for bylaws amendments, detailing the changes we suggest or
perhaps just listing the new document.

2. Rationale for each proposed change. Includes comments from dissenters,
if any.

3. Identification of problems. We will want to write this up as part of our
own process anyway, so might as well make it "more official."

Please comment.

On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:24:39PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> 1. A proposal for bylaws amendments, detailing the changes we suggest or
> perhaps just listing the new document.
>
> 2. Rationale for each proposed change. Includes comments from dissenters,
> if any.
>
> 3. Identification of problems. We will want to write this up as part of our
> own process anyway, so might as well make it "more official."

I'm not sure how (3) differs from (2). And (1) and (2) would certainly
be together in the final resolution proposed by this committee. So that
takes the number of documents down to 1.

--
Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
"Most parents have better things to do with their time than take care of
their children." -- Me

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:09:03AM -0600, Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:24:39PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > 1. A proposal for bylaws amendments, detailing the changes we suggest or
> > perhaps just listing the new document.
> >
> > 2. Rationale for each proposed change. Includes comments from dissenters,
> > if any.
> >
> > 3. Identification of problems. We will want to write this up as part of our
> > own process anyway, so might as well make it "more official."
>
> I'm not sure how (3) differs from (2). And (1) and (2) would certainly
> be together in the final resolution proposed by this committee. So that
> takes the number of documents down to 1.

I agree that (1) and (2) should be in the final document (I wouldn't
call it a resolution exactly) produced by our committee. I think (3) is
slightly different, and also belongs in the same document. Here is how I
see the final document structure (rough idea):

- Introduction
- Purpose of Committee
- Decisionmaking process
- Etc.
- Identification of Problems <--- item (3) above
- Problem 1
- What is the problem?
- Why is it a problem?
- Problem 2
- What[...]?
- Why [...]?
- Etc.
- Proposed Solutions
- Problem 1
- What is the solution? <--- item (1) above
- How does this solve the problem? <--- item (2)
- Why is this the best solution? <--- above
- Problem 2
- What[...]?
- How [...]?
- Why [...]?
- Etc.
- Conclusions
- Potential obstacles
- Potential benefits
- Suggested next step
- Etc.

That can all be one document. Thoughts?

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)debian(dot)org

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:09:03AM -0600, Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:24:39PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > 1. A proposal for bylaws amendments, detailing the changes we suggest or
> > perhaps just listing the new document.
> >
> > 2. Rationale for each proposed change. Includes comments from dissenters,
> > if any.
> >
> > 3. Identification of problems. We will want to write this up as part of our
> > own process anyway, so might as well make it "more official."
>
> I'm not sure how (3) differs from (2). And (1) and (2) would certainly
> be together in the final resolution proposed by this committee. So that
> takes the number of documents down to 1.

Well, yes and no.

The final resolution proposed is just an amendment to the Constitution. It
does not state why it is being amended. Just "strike out clause x and in
its place insert y". This is what people vote on. These documents don't
have a "rationale section" or talk about history. So this one really should
be separate. It probably won't read in a way that would be conducive to
making these comments anyway.

#2 and #3 could go either way. We could combine them, or have them
separate. One of the things we need to do is come up with a list of what's
wrong. That is for our own internal use, but we could publish it as #3.
Then we will go over each of those things, decide whether a bylaws amendment
is appropriate for solving the problem, and decide what amendment to
advance. So I just thought, hey, if we're doing it anyway, might as well
make it a document.

But it would be fine to combine it with #2.

-- John

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 03:09:39PM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> call it a resolution exactly) produced by our committee. I think (3) is
> slightly different, and also belongs in the same document. Here is how I
> see the final document structure (rough idea):
>
> - Introduction
> - Purpose of Committee
> - Decisionmaking process

I don't think we need to have that in particular in there, but the purpose
of the committee would be good.

> That can all be one document. Thoughts?

I think that it is important that our proposed bylaws revisions be a
separate document, but otherwise it looks fine to me.

-- John

>
> - Jimmy Kaplowitz
> jimmy(at)debian(dot)org

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 03:09:39PM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> I agree that (1) and (2) should be in the final document (I wouldn't
> call it a resolution exactly) produced by our committee. I think (3) is
> slightly different, and also belongs in the same document. Here is how I
> see the final document structure (rough idea):

I strongly disagree. Comittees usually produce a resolution, fully
formed, on which the parent body can vote. Since the parent body is
always allowed to table or amend the resolution, this does not limit it
in any way. Providing a fully formed resolution also reduces the chance
of any miscommunication, as well as making less work for members outside
the committee.

I can look up the full rationale in RRONR, if you like.

--
Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
"Most parents have better things to do with their time than take care of
their children." -- Me

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 02:59:11PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> The final resolution proposed is just an amendment to the Constitution. It
> does not state why it is being amended. Just "strike out clause x and in
> its place insert y". This is what people vote on. These documents don't
> have a "rationale section" or talk about history. So this one really should
> be separate. It probably won't read in a way that would be conducive to
> making these comments anyway.

Could have fooled me. Most full resolutions look like:

WHEREAS, <reasons for doing this>
RESOLVED, <things to do>.

Note that motions and resolutions are different. The secretary of SPI
has been (incorrectly) referring to motions as resolutions. That is
their prerogative.

P.S. I don't want anyone to get the idea that I'm bogged down in these
matters. I'm drafting my proposed changes right now. I just don't want
the final document to be in any way unclear, and I think the established
order provided by Robert's Rules and other references is quite
effective.

--
Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
"Most parents have better things to do with their time than take care of
their children." -- Me

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 04:29:15PM -0600, Taral wrote:
> I strongly disagree. Comittees usually produce a resolution, fully
> formed, on which the parent body can vote. Since the parent body is
> always allowed to table or amend the resolution, this does not limit it
> in any way. Providing a fully formed resolution also reduces the chance
> of any miscommunication, as well as making less work for members outside
> the committee.
>
> I can look up the full rationale in RRONR, if you like.

We also have never adopted Robert's Rules of Order (I assume RRONR is
some version/edition of that) or any other formal parliamentary rule
scheme. Therefore we are not bound by them. In fact, I'd imagine the
rules that John put forth in the self-organization document are rather
different from RRONR. If you think we should adopt RRONR, I'm open to
hearing your reasons. I don't see any such reasons, but I'm not going to
claim it's a bad idea without knowing more.

As for providing a pre-formed resolution, the idea makes sense now that I
understand it, because it would make it less likely that the board would
"censor" our recommendations before proposing them to the membership.
(That is, we'll give them something whole and ready, so they will have
to tinker with a finished product to change it. Which is their right,
but looks worse politically.)

I think, then, that we should provide both an report with the outline
that I gave in my last mail (I'll dig up the URL if you ask), and a
resolution in the form that you suggest. These two documents will be
largely redundant, except that the report will explain and elaborate
upon the resolution, which should be clear and legally precise.

(Again, just discussing ideas here, and not yet deciding on anything
final. Though, if you like the idea above, I also like it enough to go
with it as a final solution.)

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)debian(dot)org

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 05:30:36PM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> We also have never adopted Robert's Rules of Order (I assume RRONR is
> some version/edition of that) or any other formal parliamentary rule
> scheme. Therefore we are not bound by them. In fact, I'd imagine the
> rules that John put forth in the self-organization document are rather
> different from RRONR. If you think we should adopt RRONR, I'm open to
> hearing your reasons. I don't see any such reasons, but I'm not going to
> claim it's a bad idea without knowing more.

I wasn't advocating the adoption of Robert's Rules, in fact I recommend
against it. However certain things that it does are useful, and the
rationale it gives for those things is also useful.

> I think, then, that we should provide both an report with the outline
> that I gave in my last mail (I'll dig up the URL if you ask), and a
> resolution in the form that you suggest. These two documents will be
> largely redundant, except that the report will explain and elaborate
> upon the resolution, which should be clear and legally precise.

I'm content with this. If it turns out that the report bears no
additional information, then we can always decide not to present it.

--
Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
"Most parents have better things to do with their time than take care of
their children." -- Me

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> OK, looks like there was no dissent on the draft agenda posted at
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-bylaws/2003/000011.html, or the
> voting procedures, so let's start moving forward. I think we can use the
> vorting procedures spelled out there for now, with the added provision that
> all votes end after a maximum of four days.
>
> Our first task is to decide on our output -- what we are going to submit to
> the Board and the SPI membership at the conclusion of our committee.
>
> I suggest the following:
>
> 1. A proposal for bylaws amendments, detailing the changes we suggest or
> perhaps just listing the new document.

[...]

Or a series of proposals, separated so that they may be approved or
disapproved on an individual (or dependant-group) basis. This would allow
us to present some more controversial changes without jeapordising the
work of the committee. I think the rationale should be included with the
changes, including the comments from dissenters.

I'd suggest an output from the committee of a series of modifications to
the by-laws listed with the following information, something like:

Modification #5: article 10 paragraph 2:

New text:
[new text]

Old text:
[old text]

Dependencies:
[other changes that can only exist if this change is adopted]

Reasons pro:
[rationale]

Reasons con (if any):
[dissenters]

On a ballot it would look something like that plus "accept this change?
[y/n]"

We can generate an interim report with our identification of problems, and
our final report with the proposed solutions in a format like that above.
I think a preambled resolution is unnecessary.

- ----------------------------------------------------
David "cdlu" Graham cdlu(at)pkl(dot)net
Guelph, Ontario SMS: +1 519 760 1409

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/

iD8DBQE+QdPHhRoOqdX0WIkRAozkAKC/dRM+6U2VYpORk0tW19DqAN8wVgCdFjrs
qbPmGrtk4X9sJkt0Zd5jMJ0=
=d0MU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:17:27PM -0500, David Graham wrote:
> I'd suggest an output from the committee of a series of modifications to
> the by-laws listed with the following information, something like:
>
> Modification #5: article 10 paragraph 2:

> On a ballot it would look something like that plus "accept this change?
> [y/n]"

I disagree with this. Line iteming the bylaws doesn't seem particularly
wise right now, since we're likely to make large-scope changes. If the
board has issues with our proposed resolution, they will send it back to
us to address them.

--
Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
"Most parents have better things to do with their time than take care of
their children." -- Me

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:12:36PM -0600, Taral wrote:
> > On a ballot it would look something like that plus "accept this change?
> > [y/n]"
>
> I disagree with this. Line iteming the bylaws doesn't seem particularly
> wise right now, since we're likely to make large-scope changes. If the
> board has issues with our proposed resolution, they will send it back to
> us to address them.

I agree with you. Another problem is that if we have too many options,
people get confused and things move slower.

Are we all close enough that we could agree on two documents:

1. A specific amendment proposal, defining only what changes and omitting
rationale/background (no WHEREAS clause) This will contain things like
"Replace section 5 with this text" and is intended to be voted on.
It would be a full document to be voted on at once.

2. A document listing rationale for changes and background for them
(combining two of the documents I had first proposed).

Sound reasonable?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > On a ballot it would look something like that plus "accept this change?
> > > [y/n]"
> >
> > I disagree with this. Line iteming the bylaws doesn't seem particularly
> > wise right now, since we're likely to make large-scope changes. If the
> > board has issues with our proposed resolution, they will send it back to
> > us to address them.
>
> I agree with you. Another problem is that if we have too many options,
> people get confused and things move slower.

Point taken, though note it'll be up to the membership (and an enormous
amount of the membership) rather than the board to approve any changes we
propose.

To that end I'd suggest (possibly) putting forward a basic new set of
by-laws and a separate set of amendments to those modified by-laws which
risk being more controversial, if we find the need to.

This would allow the important/critical changes to the by-laws such as
allowing disclarities and things that don't work to be cleaned up without
causing all modifications to fail if too many members disagree with some
other changes that, for example, shift power around or fundamentally
change some aspect of the way SPI runs its business.

> Are we all close enough that we could agree on two documents:
>
> 1. A specific amendment proposal, defining only what changes and omitting
> rationale/background (no WHEREAS clause) This will contain things like
> "Replace section 5 with this text" and is intended to be voted on.
> It would be a full document to be voted on at once.
>
> 2. A document listing rationale for changes and background for them
> (combining two of the documents I had first proposed).
>
> Sound reasonable?

I think that only one document is necessary between these two items, but
a second document be needed as mentionned above. Though I'll agree to this
proposal in the interests of getting on with it. :)

- ----------------------------------------------------
David "cdlu" Graham cdlu(at)pkl(dot)net
Guelph, Ontario SMS: +1 519 760 1409

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/

iD8DBQE+QqmEhRoOqdX0WIkRArYQAJwKAw91csmrSzIkB44fv7P8QVfOMQCgo55Q
HecLC9vhWZWJDTV1iUEjp30=
=6tFa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 01:29:24PM -0500, David Graham wrote:
> I think that only one document is necessary between these two items, but
> a second document be needed as mentionned above. Though I'll agree to this
> proposal in the interests of getting on with it. :)

Hear, hear. Although I kind of feel responsible, since it was me who
started the discussion.

--
Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
"Most parents have better things to do with their time than take care of
their children." -- Me