Archive talk:Bylaws

Revision as of 01:53, 30 May 2007 by Tim (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

This new Mission Statement will be appropriate for giving to other groups or funders, but useless for giving to legislators, since it's about our activities, not our political beliefs. I guess that would be more like a policy paper. Anyway, I think we can probably take some cues from the old draft for use in the Advocacy section. -- Gavin 22:42, 26 Jun 2005 (EDT)

what do we need to decide?

  • Do we have members or not?
  • where do members come from? How are they defined? what are their privileges and responsibilities
  • do we have chapters? how are they defined? what are their privileges and responsibilities?
  • what is the board? how does it work? where does it come from?
  • how are the bylaws amended?

By Nelson's request, I'm providing some observations on the by-laws that I brought up briefly at the Free Culture administrative meeting that I think might be potentially problematic or could be better fleshed out before we potentially take this to a vote.

First, it seems that there's some ambiguities worth addressing --

  • Article 4, Section 1.2 -- How will the board of directors choose the chair? Majority vote? Consensus?
  • Article 4, Section 1.2 -- Since the position of exec director is so new for National Free Culture, it seems like it'd be good to provision how an executive director would be removed in the same way it's detailed for chapters.
  • Article 4, Section 2 -- The phrase "day-to-day" seems broadly and somewhat vaguely defined. If FC really will be funding the salary of an executive director or otherwise, it seems useful to provide a (non-comprehensive but nonetheless substantial) job description. -- Press inquiries, for example.
  • Can we provide that the board of directors meetings will be transparent (and how they will be?)
  • Can we provide that the executive director will not be a member of the board of directors? (it's small, but worth stating explicitly)

Then, there's a set of concerns I had that discuss what's already in the bylaws

  • Article 3, Section 2 -- So long as a commitment exists to having board meetings more regularly or having ad hoc connection through an irc channel -- it seems good to have the board of directors decide on approving chapters.
  • Article 3, Section 5 -- Similarly, removal seems like something that should be done by the board of directors. Particularly after our discussion pointing out that the removal for inactivity happens anyways through the registration clause.
  • Article 4, Section 2 -- There seems like there might be a conflict whereby the board of directors is given the powers to appoint their own directors and teams, and the executive director is as well. It might create bigger difficulties when these executive positions could be paid. In that case, I think the power to create new committees and executive positions should be given to the board, with the appointing power struck from this section on the executive director.
  • Article 4, Section 2 -- This was discussed during the meeting, but "Executive Director" might give the wrong connotation about the position's role. This debate is to a certain degree semantical, but I think is worth considering.

--Tim 10:53, 30 May 2007 (JST)