Vote on 3 Policy Labels

Sponsors

• hef

History

• 2015-04-22 - Inception
• 2015-05-05 - Discussion w/ BoD
• 2015-05-07 - Draft 3 rewrite
• 2015-05-19 - Language Lockdown (planned)
• 2015-05-26 - Vote (planned)

Background

What this vote aims to do is remove the need, and therefore ability, for the board of directors to pass voted policy. If the rules of insurance are implicitly enforced, there is no need for extra policy. That said, documentation on the extra rulesets implied by insurance policy compliance is a good idea. The membership has traditionally been very very good at documenting these types of things clearly, finding weakness and either exploiting or repairing them.

This vote aims to both protect the organization, and ensure that membership involvement stays high.

Information Dissemination

Concern has been expressed about how to communicate newly discovered caveats to contractual obligations. This information should be disseminated the same way votes are:

• The mailing list
• Signage near affected areas
• The wiki
• Meeting notes.

Disadvantages of Votes to Honor Specific Contractual Obligations

• Voting to comply with a contractual agreement carries the implication that a vote is required to comply with a contractual obligation.
• Vote language for contractual compliance is often imprecise, and difficult to correct.
• The bylaws specifiy that Director votes are permitted granted that they fulfill obligations that ensure the health of the organizaton, which implies that the minimum impact is required for the vote issue, but the minumum impact is not always desireable.
• Member participation in the space's operations should be encouraged.

Noteworthy caveats

• Members do not have the ability to vote to break the law. See Bylaws#Issues Proper for a Vote of the Membership.