My suggestion for improvement: You (the Moderator) is to only direct the meeting as far as topics / questions / consensus / voting goes. IF the moderator has a topic / question / consensu / vote then the moderator shall do so as a member and wait his or her turn.
Not to pick on you Torie but: What I saw at the last meeting was more like "Torie Time" then a meeting. as Moderator Torie got to give input after every turn. The moderator should have to wait in the Que, just like everyone else. PS, What is the short form of consensus? Conseed, conside, consensu, give in? On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Torrie Fischer <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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 > <[email protected]>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 > > >>> > > >>> <[email protected]>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 > > >>> > > [email protected] > > >>> > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Discuss mailing list > > >>> [email protected] > > >>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Discuss mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Discuss mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
