Publically viewable resolutions and increasing the visibility of board activity

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 handled by the board.

I would like to point out that any resolution passed by the board may be
overturned by a vote of at least 2/3 voting majority of a membership
vote. Please see article 5 of the by-laws for further details, or email
me directly.

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 requirements A,B and C below.
----------------- snip -----------------
A) A resolution must be submitted to the following:
1. the secretary - via secretary(at)spi-inc(dot)org AND
2. the board of directors - via board(at)spi-inc(dot)org AND
3. an SPI mailing list:
3a. use spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org UNLESS the information within the
resolution is private, legally or time sensitive, in which case,
3b. use spi-private(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org UNLESS the information is
legally sensitive, or requires limited disclosure in which case,
3c. use board(at)spi-inc(dot)org as above

B) To be considered at a board meeting, a resolution must be:
1. sponsored by a board member AND
2. submitted at least 48 hours before that board meeting occurs.

C) A resolution must not:
1. Contradict New York non profit law
2. Contradict our by-laws
----------------- snip -----------------

This next section may be added to the above, but I need to check through
our by-laws properly before it's implemented.
----------------- snip -----------------
If a resolution is not sponsored by the board, it may be submitted to
the board for consideration. I would strongly suggest approaching a
board member first, and getting a member to sponsor your resolution.

If the board will not consider a resolution, it may be put before the
membership for a vote. The proposer should submit the vote to the
secretary with N seconds. N is defined as:
N = sqrt(M) where M is the number of contributing members.
----------------- snip -----------------
For those interested - N is currently 19.39 (4 s.f.)

I would also like to see, but cannot enforce:
----------------- snip -----------------
All general discussion on resolutions, and other communications should
be sent to the mailing lists as advised in A)3a. above
----------------- snip -----------------

Regards,
--
Neil McGovern
Secretary, Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

Neil McGovern <neilm(at)spi-inc(dot)org> 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 requirements A,B and C below.
> ----------------- snip -----------------
> A) A resolution must be submitted to the following:
> 1. the secretary - via secretary(at)spi-inc(dot)org AND
> 2. the board of directors - via board(at)spi-inc(dot)org AND
> 3. an SPI mailing list:
> 3a. use spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org UNLESS the information within the
> resolution is private, legally or time sensitive, in which case,
> 3b. use spi-private(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org UNLESS the information is
> legally sensitive, or requires limited disclosure in which case,
> 3c. use board(at)spi-inc(dot)org as above

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?

> B) To be considered at a board meeting, a resolution must be:
> 1. sponsored by a board member AND
> 2. submitted at least 48 hours before that board meeting occurs.

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."

[...]
> If the board will not consider a resolution, it may be put before the
> membership for a vote. The proposer should submit the vote to the
> secretary with N seconds. N is defined as:
> N = sqrt(M) where M is the number of contributing members.

This suggested amendment to the bylaws looks like another new barrier
to member participation, designed to allow the board to ignore member
requests completely, unless they're backed by 20 contributing members
or 1 board member.

As a whole, this policy appears to further weaken member involvement
in SPI and change the bylaws. Please replace this dodgy policy with
something more open that doesn't change the bylaws, such as:

Resolutions received by the Secretary more than 48 hours before a
board meeting, or the issue of the meeting notice if later, will be
put before the board for consideration. Resolutions received later
may not be reported until the following meeting.

Please indicate if you feel the resolution request should be resent to
spi-general, spi-private or only board, or send a copy yourself.
Resolutions which have not been discussed much in advance may be
considered with a recommendation to vote at a future meeting.

and please prioritise improving member communications above building
new barriers to participation.

Hopefully,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble.

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 be put before the
> > membership for a vote. The proposer should submit the vote to the
> > secretary with N seconds. N is defined as:
> > N = sqrt(M) where M is the number of contributing members.
>
> This suggested amendment to the bylaws looks like another new barrier
> to member participation, designed to allow the board to ignore member
> requests completely, unless they're backed by 20 contributing members
> or 1 board member.

This is not an amendment - see paragraph 4 or Article Five of the
bylaws.

--
----------------------------
Michael Schultheiss
E-mail: schultmc(at)spi-inc(dot)org

> 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 guess the minutes could be considered such as beast
but that is after the fact.

> [...]
> > If the board will not consider a resolution, it may be put before the
> > membership for a vote. The proposer should submit the vote to the
> > secretary with N seconds. N is defined as:
> > N = sqrt(M) where M is the number of contributing members.
>
> This suggested amendment to the bylaws looks like another new barrier
> to member participation, designed to allow the board to ignore member
> requests completely, unless they're backed by 20 contributing members
> or 1 board member.

Yeah this is kind of awkward. I would agree that basically something
like 1 board member or 20 contributing members makes much more sense.

>
> Resolutions received by the Secretary more than 48 hours before a
> board meeting, or the issue of the meeting notice if later, will be
> put before the board for consideration. Resolutions received later
> may not be reported until the following meeting.

Honestly, I think 48 hours is a bit short. Make it a week.

>
> Please indicate if you feel the resolution request should be resent to
> spi-general, spi-private or only board, or send a copy yourself.
> Resolutions which have not been discussed much in advance may be
> considered with a recommendation to vote at a future meeting.
>
>
> and please prioritise improving member communications above building
> new barriers to participation.

I don't think he is trying to build barriers, I think he is trying to
define policy, which is completely different.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Michael Schultheiss <schultmc(at)spi-inc(dot)org> 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.

Apologies for not making it clear: that was what I was quoting.

> > > If the board will not consider a resolution, it may be put before the
> > > membership for a vote. The proposer should submit the vote to the
> > > secretary with N seconds. N is defined as:
> > > N = sqrt(M) where M is the number of contributing members.
> >
> > This suggested amendment to the bylaws looks like another new barrier
> > to member participation, designed to allow the board to ignore member
> > requests completely, unless they're backed by 20 contributing members
> > or 1 board member.
>
> This is not an amendment - see paragraph 4 or Article Five of the
> bylaws.

That seems to be for resolutions to be put to the membership directly.
There seems no seconding requirement at present before members may
vote on resolutions that the board refuse to consider.

However, this red-tape wrangling is beside the main point: why is the
board making member participation even more complicated?

Please, improve member communication before adopting these sort of new
rules and requirements.
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble.

> 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
> rules and requirements.
--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

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 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > This is not an amendment - see paragraph 4 or Article Five of the
> > bylaws.
>
> That seems to be for resolutions to be put to the membership directly.
> There seems no seconding requirement at present before members may
> vote on resolutions that the board refuse to consider.
>

From how I read the by-laws, there is :)

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:
"Any proposal submitted to the secretary with N or more number of
seconds shall be put before the membership for a vote within 30 days."

One of the points of this bit is to stop the potential for a DoS on the
membership (and the secretary) on having to deal with loads of votes
from automatic vote creation.

> However, this red-tape wrangling is beside the main point: why is the
> board making member participation even more complicated?
>
> Please, improve member communication before adopting these sort of new
> rules and requirements.

The whole point of this policy is to *improve* member participation and
communication.

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.1 [0]
I'm happy to increase or decrease this if people think it's needed.
* Resolutions must now also be sent to a spi list.

[0] http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2004-10-15-dbg.1

I understand the concern over the requirement to get 20 seconds. I'll
shortly be asking the membership committee to start downgrading inactive
memberships, as this hasn't been done AFAICT. This should lead to
smaller quorum/seconding levels.

Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil McGovern
Secretary, Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

Neil McGovern <neilm(at)spi-inc(dot)org> 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
resolution on their slate.

> "Any proposal submitted to the secretary with N or more number of
> seconds shall be put before the membership for a vote within 30 days."
>
> One of the points of this bit is to stop the potential for a DoS on the
> membership (and the secretary) on having to deal with loads of votes
> from automatic vote creation.

The board could vote to reject blocks of DoS-attempt proposals, which
would mean they don't ever reach the membership. In short, unless the
board is stupid and refuses to consider the DoS-attempt proposals,
there is no DoS: just a bit of saving/uploading emails and one extra
vote each meeting.

> > However, this red-tape wrangling is beside the main point: why is the
> > board making member participation even more complicated?
> >
> > Please, improve member communication before adopting these sort of new
> > rules and requirements.
>
> The whole point of this policy is to *improve* member participation and
> communication.

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 before the meeting
again. This deadline is new this year and is unwelcome.

[...]
> * Resolutions must now also be sent to a spi list.

2. it makes it beneficial to DoS the lists (and the secretary) by
fraudulently claiming things are proposals, trying to lose the
real things in the noise.

Instead of yet more red tape for members, fixing some of the web site
bugs, more notice of meetings (including business) and conducting more
board discussions in public would be far better ways to improve member
participation and communication.
--
MJR

> 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 before the meeting
> again. This deadline is new this year and is unwelcome.

-1.

A deadline for proposals makes complete and perfect sense.

>
> [...]
> > * Resolutions must now also be sent to a spi list.
>
> 2. it makes it beneficial to DoS the lists (and the secretary) by
> fraudulently claiming things are proposals, trying to lose the
> real things in the noise.
>
>
> Instead of yet more red tape for members, fixing some of the web site
> bugs, more notice of meetings (including business) and conducting more
> board discussions in public would be far better ways to improve member
> participation and communication.

Procedure is not red tape when done from a productivity perspective. The
more efficient the process, the more capable the process is.

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 02:37:00AM +0000, 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 period before the meeting
> again. This deadline is new this year and is unwelcome.
[...]
> Instead of yet more red tape for members, fixing some of the web site
> bugs, more notice of meetings (including business) and conducting more
> board discussions in public would be far better ways to improve member
> participation and communication.

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 complaint that new business was added
to the meeting agenda too shortly beforehand for them to notice it. The
two desires you express above, in other words, are contradictory.
(Fixing website bugs and conducting board discussions in as public a
forum as fits the subject matter are not what I am referring to, and we
both agree those are good things to do.)

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

mjr(at)phonecoop(dot)coop (MJ Ray) writes:

> Neil McGovern <neilm(at)spi-inc(dot)org> 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 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 two conflicting assertions?

Bdale

Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com> wrote:
> mjr(at)phonecoop(dot)coop (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 two conflicting assertions?

There need not be a dilemma between publishing the agenda and being
responsive to the membership. For example, you could add something
like a "member questions and requests" item early in the meetings, in
the style of England's local councils.

Now, how do we reconcile the conflicting claims of board members about
whether board discussions were being held out of members view or not?

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble.

Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org> 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 complaint that new business was added
> to the meeting agenda too shortly beforehand for them to notice it. The
> two desires you express above, in other words, are contradictory.

Not at all. The board should defer anything obviously controversial
for more discussion, especially if it is a late item, but the item
should still be raised in the meeting. Maybe some small things need
not be held up for an extra month just by an arbitrary cutoff.

Why does the board seem to be against postponing some things, yet the
debian Spain trademark has been postponed many many times?

Why is this being turned into a choice between giving adequate notice
and making member contributions jump more hoops?

Government deals with intrusive and dangerous topics and yet many
government meetings allow contributions with hours of notice - or
less. 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 encouraged to make
clear any suggested actions. Why can't SPI allow at least that level
of participation?

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble.

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> 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 perspective. The
> more efficient the process, the more capable the process is.

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.

Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble.

On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 10:13:44AM +0000, 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 inability to control submissions does not have to delay agenda
publication; late submissions simply go on the following meeting's
agenda, and the sooner meeting's agenda is published on time.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 10:03:48AM +0000, 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 a while now on that one; we
certainly don't want to authorize the Spanish attorney to launch a
lawsuit on our behalf without advice from our own lawyer. If you will
respond that it should have taken much less time than it has, I fully
agree. As mentioned in an unrelated thread on -private, Bdale has been
working with our lawyer to try to reduce the backlog of questions he's
dealing with, and it may simply come down to needing to pay him so that
he can give us more time than pro-bono work allows.

> Government deals with intrusive and dangerous topics and yet many
> government meetings allow contributions with hours of notice - or
> less. 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 encouraged to make
> clear any suggested actions. Why can't SPI allow at least that level
> of participation?

The equivalent amount of time at SPI's meetings (we try to keep them
under an hour) would be 7.5 minutes, which is certainly not enough time
to think through most decisions from first mention if one is expected to
vote at the end of that time period. If members wish to simply have a
discussion involving the board and the members, everyone can give well
more than 7.5 minutes of time on SPI's email lists, leading up to a vote
at the following meeting.

This seems like quite a high level of participation, which is
unavailable to any governmental councils which do not have email lists
with councilmembers and residents/stakeholders both included. It also
seems a better way to keep in the loop any other members who may not be
in attendance at a meeting where an issue is being raised by a member
with no notice. (This problem is rather similar to the opensource.org
issue being raised by the board with undesirably little advance notice
to the membership.)

In any case, while responsiveness to member initiatives is important,
this seems unrelated to your issue of increasing the board's
transparency and communication of its discussions and plans to the
membership. Let's please at least try to remain clear about all the
distinct issues you're raising and not confuse them with each other.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 09:42:17AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com> wrote:
> > mjr(at)phonecoop(dot)coop (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 two conflicting assertions?
>
> There need not be a dilemma between publishing the agenda and being
> responsive to the membership. For example, you could add something
> like a "member questions and requests" item early in the meetings, in
> the style of England's local councils.

I think both Bdale and I interpreted your request for "more notice of
meetings (including business)" as a request to know sufficiently in
advance what proposals will be dealt with at the meeting. The lack of
that notice, for example, seems to have been your objection in the
opensource.org vote which started this discussion. The desire to have
this advance notice, and for that notice to be accurate, means that
proposals received after the notice is submitted cannot be dealt with at
the meeting to which the notice pertains.

This is not a restriction on member participation; members are still
welcome to ask questions and make requests of the board on the mailing
lists at any time and more informally on the IRC channels outside of
meetings. Using these methods and having the firm proposal deadline
ensures the inclusion of all interested members in the discussion and
not merely those who coincidentally chose to attend that given meeting
with no advance notice of a reason to do so.

Of course, members can certainly submit proposals for a meeting agenda
item sufficiently in advance for them to be included in the notice for
that meeting. (I don't know specifically the bylaw details on
resolutions being brought to a vote by the members without the support
of the board, but the board would generally be willing to at least
address most timely proposed agenda items during a meeting, whether or
not they get finally dealt with.) It is also worth noting another
indicator that this is not a ruse to reduce member participation:
namely, the deadline for proposals to be considered at a meeting applies
to board members as well as to other members of SPI. Board members have
no timeline advantage in this regard.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 02:37:00AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Neil McGovern <neilm(at)spi-inc(dot)org> 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
> resolution on their slate.
>

A resolution is fairly distinct for a proposal for a vote, IMO anyway.

> The board could vote to reject blocks of DoS-attempt proposals, which
> would mean they don't ever reach the membership. In short, unless the
> board is stupid and refuses to consider the DoS-attempt proposals,
> there is no DoS: just a bit of saving/uploading emails and one extra
> vote each meeting.
>

There is a DoS, you're just moving it's target. If it was implemented as
above, I could send 200 emails to the board every month, and they would
need to be voted on.

> > * 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 before the meeting
> again. This deadline is new this year and is unwelcome.
>

MJ, you suggested 48h yourself above. The aim of this is to allow:
a) sufficient time for the membership to comment on a proposal.
b) allow the membership to look at the agenda with enough time to see if
they want to attend a board meeting.

Of course, if people think that there *shoudn't* be a time limit, I can
remove it, but then I seem to get complaints that there wasn't enough
notice.

> > * Resolutions must now also be sent to a spi list.
>
> 2. it makes it beneficial to DoS the lists (and the secretary) by
> fraudulently claiming things are proposals, trying to lose the
> real things in the noise.
>

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Could you give an example with
the previous ways of doing things, and the new one?

> Instead of yet more red tape for members,

I don't see this as extra red tape.

> fixing some of the web site bugs, bugs,

Certainly a good goal, yes. This is, however, a seperate issue.

> more notice of meetings (including business) and conducting more
> board discussions in public

Erm... how can I post notice of meetings with business without a
timelimit on when resolutions should be submitted by?

One of the points (as I pointed out above, but you snipped) of the "send
to a list" idea above is that this ensures that board discussions happen
in public.

Neil
--
Neil McGovern
Secretary, Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

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.1 [0]
> I'm happy to increase or decrease this if people think it's needed.
> * Resolutions must now also be sent to a spi list.

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 decided at the meeting as well as the schedule
of the meeting.[1]

Resolutions which do not meet the deadline would be automatically
defered to the next meeting. [I suppose exceptions could be made for
emergency resolutions, but those should be few and far between, and
should probably require a non-regularly scheduled meeting to be called
anyway.]

Don Armstrong

1: I've no clue if the bylaws allow it, but I'd suggest that the
secretary require that the resolutions include formatting appropriate
for the announcement of the meeting and the agenda item to minimize
work on the part of the secretary.
--
I'd never hurt another living thing.
But if I did...
It would be you.
-- Chris Bishop http://www.chrisbishop.com/her/archives/her69.html

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu

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.
> > - 48h has been picked as it's what's specified in 2004-10-15-dbg.1 [0]
> > I'm happy to increase or decrease this if people think it's needed.
> > * Resolutions must now also be sent to a spi list.
>
> 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 decided at the meeting as well as the schedule
> of the meeting.[1]
>
> Resolutions which do not meet the deadline would be automatically
> defered to the next meeting. [I suppose exceptions could be made for
> emergency resolutions, but those should be few and far between, and
> should probably require a non-regularly scheduled meeting to be called
> anyway.]
>

This seems sensible to me.
Any comments?

Neil
--
Neil McGovern
Secretary, Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

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 decided at the meeting as well as the schedule
> of the meeting.[1]
>
> Resolutions which do not meet the deadline would be automatically
> defered to the next meeting. [I suppose exceptions could be made for
> emergency resolutions, but those should be few and far between, and
> should probably require a non-regularly scheduled meeting to be called
> anyway.]

This sounds good to me, though I'd suggest a few further changes. Your
wording does not enable a resolution proposer to know his own deadline
for submitting the resolution, since the meeting could be announced less
than 24 hours after its submission with no advance warning. Also,
including the full text of the agenda schedule and resolutions is
reasonable, but so is providing a URL to the same info on the website.
Resolutions that are to be discussed but not decided on should also be
mentioned. Finally, I don't see a reason that emergency resolutions
should be restricted to irregularly scheduled meetings, but I do feel
they shouldn't be used for the sole purpose of circumventing this
policy.

I'd suggest this wording:

"Resolutions must be submitted at least 6 days (144 hours) before the
meeting at which they are to be voted on. A meeting announcement
containing the location, date, and time of each meeting shall be emailed
to the spi-announce mailing list at least 4 days (96 hours) before the
meeting. All meeting announcements will contain the full text of
resolutions to be addressed at the meeting and the schedule for the
meeting, or will provide a publically accessible URL on the SPI website
where this information can be obtained.

Resolutions submitted less than 6 days (144 hours) before the meeting at
which they are intended to be voted on will have the vote deferred to
the following meeting. The board may make exceptions to this in cases
where it is essential to make a decision sooner than this policy would
otherwise allow, but exceptions shall be avoided wherever possible in
the interest of allowing sufficient time for SPI directors and members
to notice and discuss the late resolutions before voting on them. At a
meeting where this policy causes the deferral of the vote on a
resolution, the resolution may still be discussed at the earlier meeting
at the board's discretion."

I specified 6 days instead of 5 days above in order to give the
secretary more than a 24-hour window to prepare the announcement, in
case he has a busy day at an inconvenient time. I like having several
days' notice for the meeting, which allows people to discuss on email
and arrange their attendance at the meeting if they should want to.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

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 be avoided. This is sometimes done by requiring two votes, one to
authorize the emergency vote and one to vote on it. Consider that we've
already proven that under NY law e-mail votes are impossible, so emergency
measures can't be taken outside of meetings.

b) I want to make it clear that this does not necessarily mean that the
*first* draft of new resolutions needs to go to -private or -general. I
know it's really helpful to me to have the board correct potential poor
choices of language before something goes to general discussion, so I'll
be planning on submitting second or third drafts to the larger lists.

--
--Josh Berkus

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Project Core Team
www.postgresql.org

(all opinions expressed are my own; I do not speak
for the Project unless specifically noted.)

Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 10:03:48AM +0000, 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 encouraged to make
> > clear any suggested actions. Why can't SPI allow at least that level
> > of participation?
>
> The equivalent amount of time at SPI's meetings (we try to keep them
> under an hour) would be 7.5 minutes, which is certainly not enough time
> to think through most decisions from first mention if one is expected to
> vote at the end of that time period.

The council meeting yesterday was under an hour, but the max remains
15 minutes, not 7.5. Of course, you're not expected to vote on
anything in detail at the end of that time period.

The usual format at that type of meeting is to let the participant
speak, then ask any information questions of them, then decide on
action under New Business later in the meeting proper (unless it
requires immediate action, which is handled differently in law but
very rarely used). Any resolution at that first meeting is usually a
simple act-or-not, with any detailed board resolution following at the
next meeting. There are various strengths in that pattern, including
helping other interested parties into the discussion, which I can
explain further if anyone can't see them.

Last night's meeting also closed about 30 minutes in for a second
public participation because members noticed an expert on the topic
under discussion in the gallery.

> If members wish to simply have a
> discussion involving the board and the members, everyone can give well
> more than 7.5 minutes of time on SPI's email lists, leading up to a vote
> at the following meeting.

We can, but there needs to be clear summary links made from the
minuted meetings back to the email list discussions in some way.

> This seems like quite a high level of participation, which is
> unavailable to any governmental councils which do not have email lists
> with councilmembers and residents/stakeholders both included. [...]

I think you'll find that several do now (http://www.e-democracy.org/
and other LAWS-funded projects in the UK), and their email discussions
still report to the meetings because the meetings are a legal forum (I
read that SPI's board cannot take legal email decisions - no written
resolutions and Electronic Signatures Directive equivalent in NYC
yet?) and the best summary record of business.

> In any case, while responsiveness to member initiatives is important,
> this seems unrelated to your issue of increasing the board's
> transparency and communication of its discussions and plans to the
> membership. Let's please at least try to remain clear about all the
> distinct issues you're raising and not confuse them with each other.

I agree. Please put ask those who are linking advance notice of
member participation with advance notice of meeting business to stop
it. They should be two different topics, not things to trade off
against each other.

> I think both Bdale and I interpreted your request for "more notice of
> meetings (including business)" as a request to know sufficiently in
> advance what proposals will be dealt with at the meeting. The lack of
> that notice, for example, seems to have been your objection in the
> opensource.org vote which started this discussion.

Those who read my first message about this problem can see that I
objected to transfer opensource.org to OSI because they have still not
become accountable to free software developers. I did not object
because of the repeated no- and short-notice or the discussion being
out of member sight - these are practical problems which also need
addressing, independently of the domain giveaway.

AFAIK, the only thing that changed since the last rejection is the
voters. As a consequence, members should be able to see who voted how
and why, as is their right, in order to fulfil their oversight
responsibility.

> The desire to have
> this advance notice, and for that notice to be accurate, means that
> proposals received after the notice is submitted cannot be dealt with at
> the meeting to which the notice pertains.

s/cannot/should not/ and I agree. However, there is no need to link
issuing the notice with a limit on member participation. That feels
like tit-for-tat punishing members for complaining about board notice
times by making us give even more notice in return!

> This is not a restriction on member participation;

Like ceci n'est pas une pipe?

> members are still
> welcome to ask questions and make requests of the board on the mailing
> lists at any time and more informally on the IRC channels outside of
> meetings.

Neither the mailing lists or the IRC channels outside of meetings are
linked to the main public record in any consistent way: member
participation by those routes is currently second class. I don't mind
if the board wants to fix that second-class status by a different way
than a public participation item, but it should be fixed.

> Using these methods and having the firm proposal deadline
> ensures the inclusion of all interested members in the discussion and
> not merely those who coincidentally chose to attend that given meeting
> with no advance notice of a reason to do so.

As mentioned above, notice periods and proposal deadlines need be not
be linked. Please don't link them.

Any road up, doesn't imposing deadlines on member communications
contradict by-laws Article Eight's instruction that the Secretary
shall "present to the membership at any meetings any communication
addressed to the Secretary of the organization"?

Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble.

Neil McGovern <neilm(at)spi-inc(dot)org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 02:37:00AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Neil McGovern <neilm(at)spi-inc(dot)org> 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
> > resolution on their slate.
>
> A resolution is fairly distinct for a proposal for a vote, IMO anyway.

Indeed. So we should not apply the seconding requirements for a
proposal to a resolution the board has decided not to consider.

The board's three choices on each issue under consideration are
essentially yes/no/refuse-to-consider in some manner and style, where
refuse-to-consider allows the membership to vote.

> > The board could vote to reject blocks of DoS-attempt proposals, which
> > would mean they don't ever reach the membership. In short, unless the
> > board is stupid and refuses to consider the DoS-attempt proposals,
> > there is no DoS: just a bit of saving/uploading emails and one extra
> > vote each meeting.
>
> There is a DoS, you're just moving it's target. If it was implemented as
> above, I could send 200 emails to the board every month, and they would
> need to be voted on.

Then the board votes once to reject all 200 email proposals. The
board can compress many-to-one, so it's not a very good DoS attack.

> > > * 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 before the meeting
> > again. This deadline is new this year and is unwelcome.
>
> MJ, you suggested 48h yourself above.

When? I took 48h from the proposal and rewrote it as a guaranteed
service for things arriving 48h ahead and discretionary postponement
for things arriving later. I do not support a hard 48h cut-off.

> The aim of this is to allow:
> a) sufficient time for the membership to comment on a proposal.
> b) allow the membership to look at the agenda with enough time to see if
> they want to attend a board meeting.

That aim would be satisified by issuing the agenda notice earlier.
Imposing a deadline on member participation does not meet it.

The board can always postpone detailed decisions for more
information/discussion, as they have been doing repeatedly on some
proposals. (I really don't understand how the domain vote got
polluted by a 'should decide it once-and-for-all' meme.)

> Of course, if people think that there *shoudn't* be a time limit, I can
> remove it, but then I seem to get complaints that there wasn't enough
> notice.

There should not be a time limit. It is not necessary for issuing
notices. Please do not link issuing notices and member participation.

> > > * Resolutions must now also be sent to a spi list.
> >
> > 2. it makes it beneficial to DoS the lists (and the secretary) by
> > fraudulently claiming things are proposals, trying to lose the
> > real things in the noise.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Could you give an example with
> the previous ways of doing things, and the new one?

Current way: secretary receives proposals, refers things to lists as
appropriate. Only proposals passed to lists by the secretary are
necessarily real, which makes them pretty easy to spot.

Proposed way: proposers sends proposals to lists, but only those also sent
to the secretary are really proposals. The rest are just noise.

> > Instead of yet more red tape for members,
>
> I don't see this as extra red tape.

These are new, increasingly-complex policies for things that were
fairly informal before. If it ties members up like red tape, it's red
tape.

[...]
> > more notice of meetings (including business) and conducting more
> > board discussions in public
>
> Erm... how can I post notice of meetings with business without a
> timelimit on when resolutions should be submitted by?

Please see my previous message explaining wider participation items.
Please don't link notice periods and participation deadlines.

> One of the points (as I pointed out above, but you snipped) of the "send
> to a list" idea above is that this ensures that board discussions happen
> in public.

It encourages resolutions to be posted to a public list, but how does
it ensure that board discussions happen in public?

> 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 decided at the meeting as well as the schedule
> > of the meeting.[1]
> >
> > Resolutions which do not meet the deadline would be automatically
> > defered to the next meeting. [I suppose exceptions could be made for
> > emergency resolutions, but those should be few and far between, and
> > should probably require a non-regularly scheduled meeting to be called
> > anyway.]
> >
>
> This seems sensible to me.
> Any comments?

The automatic deferral is superior to the dropping-on-the-floor.

It is unnecessary to link member participation deadlines with meeting
notice periods.

Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble.

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 01:31:33PM +0000, 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 McGovern
Secretary, Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

Neil McGovern <neilm(at)spi-inc(dot)org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 01:31:33PM +0000, 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?

It is more useful because it contains more information about what the
meeting will discuss. Analogously, are people more likely to attend
after seeing a notice saying "Concert 9pm Friday" or "Concert by local
acoustic band Best Kept Secret 9pm Friday 12 January at The Pen and
Quill Taunton" or must they have the final set list?

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, acknowledge it and defer any final
decisions.

I'm confused why this needs explaining: does anyone really think 0%
and 99% are the same, or that 0% and 100% are the only choices?

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble.
Other Best Kept Secret gig dates on http://www.rjnash.demon.co.uk/bks/

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:01:33PM +0000, 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, acknowledge it and defer any final
> decisions.

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. In
fact, it included the URL for the entire agenda as of the sending of
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 myself, it doesn't bother me greatly that I have to visit a URL to
see the agenda, but I can see how it's not maximally optimal.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:01:33PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Neil McGovern <neilm(at)spi-inc(dot)org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 01:31:33PM +0000, 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?
>
> It is more useful because it contains more information about what the
> meeting will discuss. Analogously, are people more likely to attend
> after seeing a notice saying "Concert 9pm Friday" or "Concert by local
> acoustic band Best Kept Secret 9pm Friday 12 January at The Pen and
> Quill Taunton" or must they have the final set list?
>
> 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, acknowledge it and defer any final
> decisions.
>

Recent mails certainly contain more than 0% information, my template is:
------------------- snip -------------------
MEETING REMINDER
----------------

The Board of Directors of Software in the Public Interest, Inc., will
hold a public board of directors meeting on
Tuesday, January 16, 2007, 19:00 UTC.

SPI meetings are held on the OFTC IRC network, irc.oftc.net, in #spi.
The agenda for the meeting is open for additions and available at
http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2007/2007-01-16.html

At time of writing, one motion has been raised, and there is one set
of minutes to approve.

If you need to get an item on the agenda, please contact the SPI
Secretary at secretary at spi-inc.org. Agenda items and resolutions
should be received 48h prior to the meeting start.

More information on SPI meetings can be found at
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/meetings.
------------------- snip -------------------

So, using the analogy above, it says "Board meeting by Board of
directors 7pm UTC Tuesday January 16th".

What people seem to be asking for *is* the set list.

Oh, and please don't CC: me. I read the lists and keep getting mails
twice from yourself.

Neil
--
Neil McGovern
Secretary, Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org> 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 above? The previous post was
accurate: some recent months were 0%s - no announcement at all, for
various reasons, and the agendas were not linked from SPI's home page
or meetings page. That included November (configuration problem at
lists.spi-inc.org and notice too late to notice, correct and retry in
time AIUI) and some others in 2006.

December's http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2006/000140.html
"At time of writing, two motions have been raised, and there is one
set of minutes to approve." was indeed a little more than 0%. There
was a URL for the agenda, but agenda URL content used to get edited
right up to the meeting (not sure if that still happens).

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble.

On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:52:08PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org> 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. [...]
>
> December's http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2006/000140.html
> "At time of writing, two motions have been raised, and there is one
> set of minutes to approve." was indeed a little more than 0%. There
> was a URL for the agenda, but agenda URL content used to get edited
> right up to the meeting (not sure if that still happens).
>

So, if the agenda shoudn't get edited right up until the meeting, as you
seem to be arguing for, then there should be a cutoff for adding things
to the agenda.

Neil
--
Neil McGovern
Secretary, Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

> 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 myself, it doesn't bother me greatly that I have to visit a URL to
> see the agenda, but I can see how it's not maximally optimal.

I don't see any reason why we can't just send a URL containing the
agenda.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 16:00 +0000, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:52:08PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org> 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. [...]
> >
> > December's http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-announce/2006/000140.html
> > "At time of writing, two motions have been raised, and there is one
> > set of minutes to approve." was indeed a little more than 0%. There
> > was a URL for the agenda, but agenda URL content used to get edited
> > right up to the meeting (not sure if that still happens).
> >
>
> So, if the agenda shoudn't get edited right up until the meeting, as you
> seem to be arguing for, then there should be a cutoff for adding things
> to the agenda.

As a repeat, I don't think the Agenda should be modified up to the
minute.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Neil
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Neil McGovern <neilm(at)spi-inc(dot)org> 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 people seem to be asking for *is* the set list.

I don't know what "people" but what I am asking for is to know what
types of music will be played, not the final set list. So, for
December 2006, it could have said:

Meeting business to include:
- Officer reports
- debian trademark in Spain
- opensource domains
- outstanding requests for comment from the debian project leader

Current agenda at
http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/agenda/2006/2006-12-19.html

> Oh, and please don't CC: me. I read the lists and keep getting mails
> twice from yourself.

Sorry - configuration error. Others on this list seem to be cc'ing me.

> So, if the agenda shoudn't get edited right up until the meeting, as you
> seem to be arguing for, then there should be a cutoff for adding things
> to the agenda.

I don't think I've ever argued that the agenda shouldn't get edited
right up until the meeting. Sorry if anything gave that impression.
Let me say it clearly: adding items to the agenda is OK by me as long
as it is not used to conceal things needlessly.

However, I think it should be noted what was on the agenda at time
of announcement and what are later additions, to help the board decide
whether to defer something.

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't see any reason why we can't just send a URL containing the
> agenda.

Maybe it's OK, if there is sufficient time for
intermittently-connected members to return and grab the URL. It would
be better to include details of the business in the notice, like
stated in the by-laws.

Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble.

[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 URL to
read the content of that URL. Thus, if you want as many people as
possible to see the agenda content, you include it in the email, and
if you want fewer people to see it, you include the URL. I recommend
including the agenda content in the email.

Friendly,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen

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 in SPI and the board accountability.
...

> A) A resolution must be submitted to the following:
...
> B) To be considered at a board meeting, a resolution must be:
> 1. sponsored by a board member AND
> 2. submitted at least 48 hours before that board meeting occurs.

This is all good. But I do think that 48 hours is too short. And I
do think we need to have an agenda long enough in advance, and well
enough publicised, that people can make special effort to attend.

A sensible schedule would be:

by T-10 days but not before T-14 days:
Announcement giving time and place of meeting and
instructions for getting items onto the agenda.
T-7 days: Latest non-emergency agenda item submission deadline,
to be submitted in accordance with Neil's instructions.
Agenda items which are intended to result in a board
decision (ie nearly all of them) should come with a
draft resolution text.
by T-5 days: Meeting reminder announcement containing complete list
of non-emergency business to be conducted
(NB, _containing_ not _linking to_).

For emergency agenda items, or items not submitted in the proper
manner, the board would first vote whether to treat it as an urgent
item and deal with it straight away; failing that it will be deferred.

If it's too much work to remember all of these deadlines then we
should automate it. The bot could screen-scrape the agenda (as edited
continually by the secretary as things come in).

Ian.

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 by
the time of the meeting, both to improve the quality of
decisionmaking and to improve the efficiency of the meeting itself.

2. SPI members should be given reasonable notice of what business is
to be transacted at board meetings, so that the membership can
participate most fully in the discussion, and arrange to attend
meetings which deal with subjects in which they have particular
interest.

3. It is good practice to set a deadline for submission of new
business, and to list the business to be conducted in meeting
announcements.

4. The SPI Secretary has already made progress towards improving the
mechanics of SPI Board meetings, in particular by establishing
formal standards for proposing business for the meeting.

5. The SPI Secretary is requested to incorporate into those formal
standards a timetable resembling this one:

by T-10 days but not before T-14 days:
Announcement giving time and place of meeting and
instructions for getting items onto the agenda.
T-7 days: Latest non-emergency agenda item submission deadline,
to be submitted in accordance with other instructions
from the Secretary.
Agenda items which are intended to result in a board
decision (ie nearly all of them) should come with a
draft resolution text to be considered.
by T-5 days: Meeting reminder announcement, sent by email,
containing complete list of non-emergency business to
be conducted (NB, _containing_ not _linking to_).

where T is the time of any particular board meeting.

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 will be deferred for the next meeting.

Ian.

> 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 will be deferred for the next meeting.

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 difficult to achieve on short notice. Getting
two board members to back something is going to be much easier.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
>
> Ian.
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-board mailing list
> Spi-board(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-board
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

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 difficult to achieve on short notice. Getting
> two board members to back something is going to be much easier.

?? Obviously the procedural vote would be held in the meeting at
which the item was to be discussed (or not discussed, as the case
might be). If the meeting is quorate then getting a vote is easy; if
it's not then you're doomed anyway.

Ian.

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?
>>
>> A vote of the board can be difficult to achieve on short notice. Getting
>> two board members to back something is going to be much easier.
>
> ?? Obviously the procedural vote would be held in the meeting at
> which the item was to be discussed (or not discussed, as the case
> might be). If the meeting is quorate then getting a vote is easy; if
> it's not then you're doomed anyway.

Oh... heh I guess that's true :)

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Ian.
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-board mailing list
> Spi-board(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-board
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

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.
Agenda items which are intended to result in a board
decision (ie nearly all of them) should come with a
> draft resolution text to be considered.
+ Agenda items which consist of reports to the board or to
+ the membership should come with the complete text of
+ the report as it is to be considered by the board,
+ by this same deadline

Ian.

Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> 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 of new
> business, and to list the business to be conducted in meeting
> announcements.

It may be good to set a deadline for resolution proposals, but it
doesn't seem good practice to try to deadline new business.

> by T-5 days: Meeting reminder announcement, sent by email,
> containing complete list of non-emergency business to
> be conducted (NB, _containing_ not _linking to_).

Ow. So that's Thursday evening in the current model? I'd struggle to
reschedule if I don't know until then that something I want to oversee
is being discussed. Please, T-8 (Monday before) at latest.

> 6. For emergency agenda items, [...]

Agreed. A documented emergency item rule would be good.

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble.

MJ Ray writes ("Re: Publically viewable resolutions and increasing the visibility of board activity"):
> Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
> > by T-5 days: Meeting reminder announcement, sent by email,
> > containing complete list of non-emergency business to
> > be conducted (NB, _containing_ not _linking to_).
>
> Ow. So that's Thursday evening in the current model? I'd struggle to
> reschedule if I don't know until then that something I want to oversee
> is being discussed. Please, T-8 (Monday before) at latest.

In order for the published agenda to be complete it is necessary for
the business introduction deadline to precede the agenda announcement
by enough time for the secretary to prepare the agenda announcement.

I know you don't agree that the agenda should necessarily be complete
but I think it's a necessity.

Ian.

MJ Ray writes ("Re: Publically viewable resolutions and increasing the visibility of board activity"):
> Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
> > by T-5 days: Meeting reminder announcement, sent by email,
> > containing complete list of non-emergency business to
> > be conducted (NB, _containing_ not _linking to_).
>
> Ow. So that's Thursday evening in the current model? I'd struggle to
> reschedule if I don't know until then that something I want to oversee
> is being discussed. Please, T-8 (Monday before) at latest.

Oh, and I forgot to say: since motions must be submitted to the public
lists by T-7, you do get some notification. If you really need to
know by T-7 you just need to catch up on the list by then.

Ian.