On Wednesday, April 02, 2014 17:39:03 Omar Rassi wrote: > but what about over 50? Is it the same? is it different?
what does any of this have to do with my original post I wasn't asking to talk about member dues or bureaucratic fantasies.. I was looking for feedback on last night's meeting and suggestions to improve it. > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 5:21 PM, a l <leit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The procedure, as written, for removal of board members if the membership > > is under 50 looks pretty well spelled out "... A majority of the > > membership..." Which as Chris pointed out a while back is defaulted to > > 51%. > > > > Regards, > > Andrew L > > > > On Apr 2, 2014 4:41 PM, "Omar Rassi" <omar.ra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> From what I gathered since the very beginning of Synhak, the spirit of > >> how Synhak is structured is such that the Membership decides how things > >> should be. The board exists to help support what the members want to do > >> and > >> achieve. Its important to remember that the bylaws also allow for the > >> membership to remove any or all board members without cause, (Chapter > >> 6.3.3): > >> > >> > >> *6.3.3. Removal of Directors * > >> > >> Any or all directors may be removed without cause if: > >> > >> * In a corporation with fewer than 50 members, the removal is approved by > >> a majority of all members. > >> > >> * In a corporation with 50 or more members, the removal is approved by > >> the members. > >> > >> > >> So both Torrie and Justin are correct. A board meeting must be called to > >> make adjustments to the schedule of membership dues but the membership > >> must > >> first reach consensus on what that new schedule should be. The board > >> creates resolutions without the membership deciding if that's what they > >> want might cause the membership to second-guess their board. > >> > >> Also, as a side note, the bylaws do need to be updated with the current > >> address as it still lists 21 West North as the principal office and there > >> isn't a clear difference between the less than/more than 50 members > >> procedure for Removal of Directors. Time for me to write an email to > >> Champions@ > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Torrie Fischer <tdfisc...@hackerbots.net>wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, April 02, 2014 15:42:45 Justin Herman wrote: > >>> > Just a point of order... > >>> > > >>> > Per the Bylaws, Section 5.3, the membership does not decide the dues, > >>> > >>> the > >>> > >>> > board does. > >>> > >>> Right, but it would be a Very Bad Idea to not get consensus on what is > >>> reasonable. > >>> > >>> > Each member must pay, within the time and on the conditions set by the > >>> > board, the dues, fees, and > >>> > assessments in amounts to be fixed from time to time by the board. > >>> > > >>> > So a champion needs to call a board meeting. > >>> > > >>> > (PS: I am in support of having a senior discount as suggested by > >>> > >>> Philip and > >>> > >>> > interested in talking about family discounts) > >>> > > >>> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Torrie Fischer > >>> > >>> <tdfisc...@hackerbots.net>wrote: > >>> > > Last night's meeting seemed to go alright, though less good than > >>> > > last > >>> > > week's: > >>> > > > >>> > > * It devolved into a series of back and forth Q&A sessions between > >>> > >>> two > >>> > >>> > > people > >>> > > waaaay too often > >>> > > * Nobody had anything they wanted to bring up after we talked about > >>> > >>> the > >>> > >>> > > wall > >>> > > > >>> > > I'd like to discuss two improvements to the meeting. > >>> > > > >>> > > First, a stack-watcher. > >>> > > > >>> > > The role of the stack watcher would be to catch who raises their > >>> > > hand > >>> > > first > >>> > > and ensure that everyone gets a chance to speak in the order that > >>> > >>> they > >>> > >>> > > want > >>> > > during discussion. When listening to discussion, I'm trying to keep > >>> > >>> an eye > >>> > >>> > > on > >>> > > the notes on the screen, watching for raised hands, making sure that > >>> > > nobody > >>> > > talks for too long, and trying to remember the stack of topics that > >>> > >>> we're > >>> > >>> > > discussing (i.e., start on the wall, move down into ventilation, > >>> > >>> move down > >>> > >>> > > into moving the furnace, move back up to ventilation, back up to the > >>> > >>> wall, > >>> > >>> > > down to ceiling height, etc). > >>> > > > >>> > > It'd be super cool if someone could play stack watcher next week. > >>> > >>> Just > >>> > >>> > > keep a > >>> > > list of who is speaking when on a whiteboard. > >>> > > > >>> > > Second, a programmed agenda. > >>> > > > >>> > > Philip and I were talking about this, regarding the fact that > >>> > >>> membership > >>> > >>> > > dues > >>> > > and senior rates haven't been brought up yet. This also ties in with > >>> > >>> the > >>> > >>> > > recent discussion about a proposal that had been brought up before > >>> > >>> and was > >>> > >>> > > still open for discussion, but nobody brought it to the meeting. > >>> > > > >>> > > I'd like to request that everyone adds topics that they want to see > >>> > > discussed > >>> > > or consensed upon to the next meeting's agenda before Saturday > >>> > >>> night. That > >>> > >>> > > provides a few immediate benefits: > >>> > > > >>> > > * Everyone knows what we'll be talking about in advance > >>> > > * Nobody has to go check the proposals page to figure out what needs > >>> > >>> to be > >>> > >>> > > talked about > >>> > > * The meeting can progress along a lot smoother > >>> > > * We don't end up like last night where we talk briefly about the > >>> > > few > >>> > > issues > >>> > > that anyone remembers to bring up while other issues aren't > >>> > >>> considered > >>> > >>> > > * If what you want to talk about isn't on the agenda, you can be > >>> > >>> free to > >>> > >>> > > not > >>> > > show up if you don't want to, safe in the knowledge that you won't > >>> > >>> get > >>> > >>> > > screwed > >>> > > over because your voice wasn't heard > >>> > > * Proxies can be stated more concretely than "Hey, if we talk about > >>> > >>> this, > >>> > >>> > > here's my opinion" > >>> > > > >>> > > To avoid any kind of competition, I'd like to have the list of > >>> > > topics > >>> > > projected on the screen (since it'd already be in the meeting minute > >>> > > template > >>> > > that gets edited), and we collectively decide on what we want to > >>> > >>> discuss. > >>> > >>> > > Also related to the crosspost from noisebridge-discuss@, I am > >>> > >>> looking into > >>> > >>> > > building various decision making plugins for Spiff which we can then > >>> > >>> use > >>> > >>> > > to > >>> > > completely remove all this proposal discussion from the meeting and > >>> > >>> put > >>> > >>> > > everyone on a solid footing instead of giving such a *huge* > >>> > >>> advantage to > >>> > >>> > > those > >>> > > who have the free time to show up on a Tuesday at 7PM. > >>> > > > >>> > > Thoughts, please! > >>> > > _______________________________________________ > >>> > > Discuss mailing list > >>> > > Discuss@synhak.org > >>> > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Discuss mailing list > >>> Discuss@synhak.org > >>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> Discuss@synhak.org > >> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > Discuss@synhak.org > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
