Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws


Hi, :-)

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 04:42, David Nelson <commerce@traduction.biz> wrote:
Hi Charles, SC guys :-)

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:23, Charles-H. Schulz
<charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
David, as usual, please feel free to review the language... thanks!

--
Charles-H. Schulz

I added some numbering to the notes to allow for easier discussion here...

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws


[REVIEWER'S NOTE 01: MAYBE MOVE THE 4 DEFINITIONS BELOW TO THE
DEFINITIONS SECTION IN 1.1 ABOVE?]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 02: MAYBE ADD A CLAUSE WITH SPECIFIC PROVISOS ABOUT
THE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE?]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 03: SO WHAT IS THE SITUATION REGARDING THIS?]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 04: THE TERM "COMMUNITY" COULD USEFULLY BE DEFINED IN
THE DEFINITIONS SECTION?]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 05: HOW LONG?]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 06: COULD THERE MAYBE BE A SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT FOR
TAKING IN NEW MEMBERS FROM THE COMMUNITY WHO WERE NOT INVOLVED IN OOo?
IN ANY CASE, IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THIS PURPORTEDLY TEMPORARY
PROVISION ABOUT OOo PEOPLE HARD-CODED INTO THE PERMANENT BYE-LAWS?]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 07: PERHAPS THERE COULD BE A SPECIAL
"complaints@documentfoundation.org" MAIL ADDRESS THAT WOULD BE THE
PLACE TO SEND SUCH REQUESTS? THEREFORE, ONE COULD MAYBE MENTION THAT
ADDRESS HERE AS THE PROCEDURAL RULE?]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 08: PERHAPS THERE COULD BE A SPECIAL
"resign@documentfoundation.org" MAIL ADDRESS THAT WOULD PROVIDE AN
UNEQUIVOCAL RECORD OF WHETHER OR NOT A MEMBER IS DEEMED TO HAVE
RESIGNED? THEREFORE, ONE COULD MAYBE MENTION THAT ADDRESS HERE AS THE
PROCEDURAL RULE?]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 09: IMHO, A LOT MORE SPECIFIC INFO ABOUT THE
MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE WOULD BE A GOOD THING... HOW MANY MEMBERS? MEETS
HOW OFTEN? HOW WILL MEETINGS BE HELD (CONFCALL?
http://code.google.com/p/openmeetings/ ?)? WHAT VOTING RULES? MAYBE
THERE SHOULD BE EXPLICIT RULES CONCERNING APPEALS? HOW LONG IS THIS
"INTERIM PERIOD"?]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 10: PLEASE REFER TO MY NOTE IN THE "CONTINUITY OF
MEMBERSHIP" SECTION REGARDING POSSIBILITY OF SPECIAL PROVISION FOR
MEMBERSHIP DURING INITIAL PERIOD OF EXISTENCE OF THE PROJECT...]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 11: WHAT INTERVAL OF TIME? BETTER BE SPECIFIC?]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 12: IMHO, THIS SECTION NEEDS A LOT OF CLARIFICATION
AND AUGMENTATION... WHAT DIFFERENT KINDS OF THINGS WILL WE BE VOTING
ABOUT? HOW WILL VOTES BE HELD (ONLINE VOTING SYSTEM, OR WHAT)? THIS IS
THE SECTION I FIND MOST VAGUE AND NEEDING MORE ATTENTION... LACK OF
CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE GUIDELINES IN THIS SECTION IS WHERE I FEEL MOST
OF THE "CONTROVERSIAL" SITUATIONS MIGHT ARISE...]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 13: THIS SENTENCE WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON A DECISION
ABOUT "STV"...]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 14: I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THIS SENTENCE. IS THIS
A "MEETING OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS" OR A "MEETING OF THE MEMBERSHIP
COMMITTEE"? DOES THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE HAVE TO BE ATTENDED PHYSICALLY,
OR CAN WE USE AN ONLINE CONFERENCING SYSTEM LIKE
http://www.gotomeeting.com/fec/ (ACCOUNT WOULD HAVE TO BE SPONSORED BY
CITRIX ONLINE) OR http://code.google.com/p/openmeetings/ ?]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 15: MORE GUIDELINES NEEDED ABOUT ADVANCE NOTIFICATION
OF POLLS/ELECTIONS/VOTES TO COVER THE VARIOUS SCENARIOS IN WHICH
VOTING WILL BE USED AS A MEANS OF TAKING DECISIONS?]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 16: SURELY A DECISION WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN ABOUT
THIS BEFORE THE BYE-LAWS COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE DEFINITIVELY
FINISHED? MORE COMMENTS BELOW ABOUT "STV"...]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 17: THIS SEEMS TO CONFLICT WITH THE TERMS OF
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws#Board_of_Directors
AND IS MAYBE REDUNDANT HERE? OR REDUNDANT THERE? WHERE IS BEST TO
COVER THIS?]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 18: SURELY A DECISION WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN ABOUT
THIS BEFORE THE BYE-LAWS COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE DEFINITIVELY
FINISHED? "STV" COULD BE AN INTERESTING AND EFFECTIVE PART OF THE
GOVERNANCE, BUT THEN IT WOULD NEED APPROPRIATE RULES AND PROCEDURES IN
THIS SECTION...]

[REVIEWERS NOTE 19: IMHO, THERE ARE UNDESIRABLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR TIED
VOTES HERE, AS WELL AS VOTES PUSHED THROUGH BY ONLY A MINORITY OF THE
BOARD MEMBERS (4 OUT OF 9). MAYBE MORE RULES NEEDED TO TRY AND
ANTICIPATE ALL SITUATIONS?]

[REVIEWER'S NOTE 20: IMVHO, THE BYE-LAWS SHOULD ALSO CONTAIN
PROCEDURES AND RULES GOVERNING CHANGES/AMENDMENTS TO THE BYE-LAWS
THEMSELVES; FAILURE TO COVER THIS ISSUE CLEARLY AND DEFINITIVELY COULD
GIVE RISE TO "CONTROVERSIAL SITUATIONS"...]

HTH. :-)

David Nelson


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.