On 02/12/2016 04:44 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 02:12:59PM -0800, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>> On 02/12/2016 02:00 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmm, yeah, maybe co-op/money/website are a lot more interdependent
>>> than I was thinking. That makes me wonder — what is the plan for
>>> co-op and money? If they are going to impact site development, and
>>> be impacted by it, we need a holistic roadmap. I looked around at
>>> the Next and Strategy wiki pages and didn't find any mention of a
>>> plan. I'm pretty sure there *is* a plan (part of which is drafting
>>> bylaws..?).
>>>
>>
>> We need the Bylaws first and foremost, and there's work I need to do
>> (partly since Jon, who had done some, hasn't been active lately).
> 
> I think it would be good to list these tasks, whatever they may be, in
> OpenProject.
> 
> Regarding the tech roadmap, I have some more questions about the
> relationships between co-op requirements and website requirements.
> These questions may be rather pedantic, but my hope is to have a
> ridiculously clear set of priorities.
> 
>>> Will there be requirements put on the website to achieve any of that
>>> vision (non-profit, cooperative, both)?
>>
>> The website in terms of the projects we support will need to follow the
>> legally stated mission.
> 
> So: does the website need to follow the mission before incorporation,
> or can it follow afterwards as a work-in-progress? If the former, does
> that mean we must be funding other projects before we can incorporate?
> (I highly doubt it, but like I said, I want the relationships to be
> stunningly clear.)
> 
>> Otherwise, we will need to have infrastructure one way or the other
>> for managing the board meetings and membership contracts etc. i.e.
>> the basic operations of running a co-op.
>>
>> ...
>> On the tech infrastructure side, we need to have the systems that
>> recognize co-op members in terms of board elections and other voting.
> 
> Again: is this infrastructure a hard requirement for our website
> before incorporation, or is it something we can fulfill by other
> means first?
> 
> I am trying to determine what, exactly, the MVP is. If we can be a
> co-op without these features in our website, then it would not be
> 'minimal' to have them.
> 
> If we can AVOID having these features until later, that would give a
> lot more flexibility to the tech roadmap, and allow us to hit the
> milestone of funding ourselves (!!) a lot sooner.
> 
> 

In short: we *need* to have the co-op governance working ASAP. That
means that there are the required roles, the bylaws are set, and we are
in fact having meetings and elections. We are not legally required to
have these things just to take in money (we're already getting
donations), but they really should be set by the time we are saying in
any real sense that we are "open for business", and ideally *sooner*.

None of that says anything about how we do these things (like whether
the manner in which we hold meetings and elections is connected to the
core website or not), as long as it follows the bylaws (which must
follow legal requirements).

A top priority is indeed to finish making decisions about bylaws that
our lawyer wants us to make and then get that final stuff back to her.

I'm about to be a guest on a podcast again, but tomorrow I should be
able to get this stuff onto the OpenProject wiki or something. Some of
it is already on the main wiki. We just need a way to all discuss and
come to decisions so we finally have clarified stuff to hand off to the
lawyer. She wants us to have clear decisions like "what precisely
defines a project class member?" and similar things that were
inadequately precise.

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop
https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Reply via email to