Community Bylaws

Hi,

Private sending first. Attached are a set of similar yet simplified
community bylaws. What was modified:

sorry for being so late on this, Charles. Replying in public, since I think the topic is interesting to everyone.

Our statutes (http://documentfoundation.org/statutes.pdf) foresee at various places, that we have so-called Community Bylaws. Although the same term is used, it is not necessarily the same as we have currently in the wiki. The wiki page of the same title served as basis for the statutes, so some parts have already been incorporated.

The main points in the statutes where the Community Bylaws are mentioned are the following:

- § 10 III 1: "Further details on admittance or exclusion from the board of trustees shall be regulated in the community bylaws, which are enacted by the board of directors."

- § 12 V: "Details on admittance and exclusion from the membership committee shall be regulated in the bylaws which are enacted by the board of directors."

I think we should start with a blank document that only contains regulations as outlined above. It does not harm if we add some more to this document. However, keep in mind the following things:

1. Nothing that's already mentioned in the statutes should be mentioned again in the bylaws.

2. Regulations in the bylaws cannot be contradictory to the statutes.

3. After the initial set-up, per § 10 III 2 the board can *not* just change them. We need a vote by the members, and looking at the participation rate during the LibOCon voting, we should not expect that everyone replies upon first request. :wink:

So, my proposal would be to start with a lightweight Community Bylaws. Other "best practices" might fit into separate documents that are not subject to such requirements.

Florian

Hello Florian,

Hi,

> Private sending first. Attached are a set of similar yet simplified
> community bylaws. What was modified:

sorry for being so late on this, Charles. Replying in public, since I
think the topic is interesting to everyone.

Our statutes (http://documentfoundation.org/statutes.pdf) foresee at
various places, that we have so-called Community Bylaws. Although the
same term is used, it is not necessarily the same as we have
currently in the wiki. The wiki page of the same title served as
basis for the statutes, so some parts have already been incorporated.

The main points in the statutes where the Community Bylaws are
mentioned are the following:

- § 10 III 1: "Further details on admittance or exclusion from the
board of trustees shall be regulated in the community bylaws, which
are enacted by the board of directors."

- § 12 V: "Details on admittance and exclusion from the membership
committee shall be regulated in the bylaws which are enacted by the
board of directors."

I think we should start with a blank document that only contains
regulations as outlined above. It does not harm if we add some more
to this document. However, keep in mind the following things:

1. Nothing that's already mentioned in the statutes should be
mentioned again in the bylaws.

I disagree ; we need clear bylaws that are easily understandable by
everyone.

2. Regulations in the bylaws cannot be contradictory to the statutes.

Sure that is very important.

3. After the initial set-up, per § 10 III 2 the board can *not* just
change them. We need a vote by the members, and looking at the
participation rate during the LibOCon voting, we should not expect
that everyone replies upon first request. :wink:

But it makes sense anyway :slight_smile:

So, my proposal would be to start with a lightweight Community
Bylaws. Other "best practices" might fit into separate documents that
are not subject to such requirements.

Well, I disagree. I think that if you look at our present bylaws
they're mostly valid but only specific things need to be modified and
simplified.

Best,
Charles.

Hi Charles,

Well, I disagree. I think that if you look at our present bylaws
they're mostly valid but only specific things need to be modified and
simplified.

I am talking about the "Community Bylaws" that are mentioned in our statutes. Those we need to have according to the statutes, and those should contain doubled content, I think this is rather important, so my points stay valid. :slight_smile: It's more a legal issue here.

What we can do, in addition, is a combined document that (legally not binding, not referenced in the statutes) outlines all rules in a single document.

However, first, we need the community bylaws, IMHO in the way I described it and the statutes require it.

Florian

I think we should start with a blank document that only contains
regulations as outlined above. It does not harm if we add some more to
this document. However, keep in mind the following things:

  I tend to agree that a clear separation of the legally binding pieces,
from the bits we have adopted is rather helpful, stops people thinking
they can change the set-in-stone bits, and helps them understand that
they can change the other bits :slight_smile:

So, my proposal would be to start with a lightweight Community Bylaws.
Other "best practices" might fit into separate documents that are not
subject to such requirements.

  I would tend to agree, personally.

  HTH,

    Michael.

Hi Charles,

> Well, I disagree. I think that if you look at our present bylaws
> they're mostly valid but only specific things need to be modified
> and simplified.

I am talking about the "Community Bylaws" that are mentioned in our
statutes. Those we need to have according to the statutes, and those
should contain doubled content, I think this is rather important, so
my points stay valid. :slight_smile: It's more a legal issue here.

Okay, so you need specific added content to the Statutes, am I getting
this right?

What we can do, in addition, is a combined document that (legally not
binding, not referenced in the statutes) outlines all rules in a
single document.

However, first, we need the community bylaws, IMHO in the way I
described it and the statutes require it.

the community bylaws we have, we need them to be modified a bit . So we
could do the following:
* The statutes + the community bylaws that are relevant in them (the
  "lightweight" version)
* The community bylaws as we know them, on the wiki but we need some
  points to be modified.

Did I get this right?

Best,
Charles.

Hi,

Okay, so you need specific added content to the Statutes, am I getting
this right?

yes, that describes it pretty well. Technically spoken, the statutes legally include two more documents - Rules of Procedures and Community Bylaws, or "Geschäftsordnung" and "Community-Satzung" in German. Those two documents are set forth in the statutes, but they do not have the same legal approval process, nontheless we need them. The statutes foresee that the RoP can be easily changed, whereas the CB are much harder to change, but not as hard as the statutes.

Since both "extend" and clarify the statutes, no double or contradictory content should be in there, and nothing that is not needed.

It does not deny us to come up with some more documents, overviews etc. That's up to us and not subject to the statutes.

the community bylaws we have, we need them to be modified a bit . So we
could do the following:
* The statutes + the community bylaws that are relevant in them (the
   "lightweight" version)

No. The lightweight version does *not* include the statutes. It *only* includes what is *not* inside the statutes. :slight_smile: Otherwise, it would be doubled. E.g. the bylaws as we need them do not tell that there are 7 BoD members plus 3 deputies, since that's already been set. They do, however, contain more information on the MC. Not it's composition, since that's also set already, but it's ways of working and some more rules e.g.

So, in a nutshell:

Given are the statutes.
Community bylaws which we need extend them.

Any other rules, overviews etc. we can come up with is our choice, but it has in principle nothing to do with both of the above. If e.g. someone wants to draft a wiki page with lots of information on how to read the statutes and bylaws together, that's fine. It's not legally binding, but provided for convenience.

Florian

Ojay, I'll draft something then...

Best,
Charles.

Hi Florian, Charles, et al.

I simply wanted to comment on one aspect of Florian's email - the idea that
discussion regarding community by-laws was taking place in private. I
personally can not imagine any scenario where such would be acceptable.

Thanks,

//drew

-----
Document Foundation Mail Archives

Hi Drew,

I simply wanted to comment on one aspect of Florian's email - the idea that
discussion regarding community by-laws was taking place in private. I
personally can not imagine any scenario where such would be acceptable.

what exactly are you referring to? The community bylaws have not even been drafted yet in the form we legally need them as defined in the statutes.

Florian

Hi Drew,

> I simply wanted to comment on one aspect of Florian's email - the idea that
> discussion regarding community by-laws was taking place in private. I
> personally can not imagine any scenario where such would be acceptable.

what exactly are you referring to? The community bylaws have not even
been drafted yet in the form we legally need them as defined in the
statutes.

Hi Florian

From the first email in this thread:

Hi,

> Private sending first. Attached are a set of similar yet simplified
> community bylaws. What was modified:

sorry for being so late on this, Charles. Replying in public, since I
think the topic is interesting to everyone.

Does it make more sense now - also it need not be a major discussion,
it's just a comment.

//drew

drew jensen wrote (28-02-12 21:42)

From the first email in this thread:

sorry for being so late on this, Charles. Replying in public, since I
think the topic is interesting to everyone.

Does it make more sense now - also it need not be a major discussion,
it's just a comment.

Ah, something as that I bike to a meeting with a friend and talk about some topics and that we then say to each other "we should discuss that at the meeting" ?

Hello Drew,

> Hi Drew,
>
> > I simply wanted to comment on one aspect of Florian's email - the idea that
> > discussion regarding community by-laws was taking place in private. I
> > personally can not imagine any scenario where such would be acceptable.
>
> what exactly are you referring to? The community bylaws have not even
> been drafted yet in the form we legally need them as defined in the
> statutes.
>
Hi Florian

From the first email in this thread:

> Hi,
>
>
> > Private sending first. Attached are a set of similar yet simplified
> > community bylaws. What was modified:
>
> sorry for being so late on this, Charles. Replying in public, since I
> think the topic is interesting to everyone.

Does it make more sense now - also it need not be a major discussion,
it's just a comment.

I think you're right to point this out. There was a private discussion,
in fact there were two, but both indeed had no remarkable importance.

The first one clearly happened privately as it was in the context of the
foundation's incorporation and what really went on was a request to
review the existing bylaws in the light of the existing bylaws and
correct the bylaws if there were in conflict. Then the second private
discussion was me sending a private email to Florian with a draft,
asking him, "so what do you think of that?".

Obviously, these are preparatory works, and some of it could not readily
be made public for legal reasons, but obviously whatever validation
would imply a publication, which implies publicity.

I hope it helps.

Best,

Hi Charles,

If you'd like someone to act as proofreader, I'll be delighted to help out...

Thank you David. I need to work on them actually :slight_smile:

Charles.