Changes

=VOTE PROPOSAL ROUGH DRAFT=

=VOTE PROPOSAL=

I propose a vote to clarify the convoluted, confusing and seldom regarded bits in the current bylaws that cover quorum for votes. It would simply require 1/3 of Full members to participate in a vote, for it to meet quorum. It aligns with actual behavior of the officers, board and membership and all votes from the past several years, that I've witnessed.  

I propose a vote to clarify the convoluted, confusing and seldom regarded bits in the current bylaws that cover quorum for votes. If passed, PS1 would simply require 1/3 of Full members to participate in a vote, for it to meet quorum. That's actually what has been done since 2011, when the quorum was reduced from 50% to 1/3 by a vote whose text is lost to history. This vote aligns with actual behavior of the officers, board and membership and all votes from the past several years, and I've witnessed them up-close while being a board member for three consecutive years and sitting in on board meetings occasionally since then.  

== Sponsors ==

== Sponsors ==

== Background ==

== Background ==

There is a very convoluted bit in the bylaws intended to allow a vote to happen even if Full members stay away from voting ... essentially it removes a member from a count towards quorum if they are inactive and don't participate for a period of time. However, record-keeping, conduct of meetings and understanding of the process is so poor, that it has never been properly conducted. Any vote that would be attempted under the true bylaws-specified process could easily be challenged based on poor audits of membership and record-keeping. The de facto standard then, has been to interpret quorum in the most conservative way at 1/3 of full members. This is still difficult, since in every audit of full members, some are found to not be in good standing, or still be on the rolls despite being suspended or otherwise not a full member, and it isn't unthinkable that a full member who is paying, is somehow listed as not being so, or otherwise did not get a vote announcement or proxy email. This vote does not address the process of conducting a member audit, validating the full member rolls, or anything else; it leaves that where it was, a challenge that the officers, board and full membership should attend to.

There is a very convoluted bit in the bylaws (Section 5.1.2.1, linked here https://wiki.pumpingstationone.org/Bylaws#Quorum)intended to allow a vote to happen even if Full members stay away from voting ... essentially it removes a member from a count towards quorum if they are inactive and don't participate for a period of time. However, record-keeping, conduct of meetings and understanding of the process is so poor, that it has never been properly conducted. Any vote that would be attempted under the true bylaws-specified process could easily be challenged based on poor performance of audits of membership and record-keeping. The de facto standard then, has been to interpret quorum in the most conservative way at 1/3 of Full members. While this is still difficult, since in every audit of full members, some are found to not be in good standing, or still be on the rolls despite being suspended or otherwise not a full member, and it isn't unthinkable that a full member who is paying, is somehow listed as not being so, or otherwise did not get a vote announcement or proxy email .. it can be done by carefully comparing the payments received by PayPal with the voter roster. The voter roster is easier to audit now that Wild Apricot is being phased in, but will still be difficult until everyone is migrated off of ps1auth, onto Wild Apricot, and is paying by debit or credit card. This vote does not address the process of conducting a member audit, validating the full member rolls, or anything else; it leaves that where it was, a challenge that the officers, board and full membership should attend to. There is no ulterior motive for this vote other than to bring voting in line with actual practice, as it has been proven to be entirely adequate for ordinary operation of the organization.

 

There is an update to the Bylaws approaching open discussion amongst the membership and ultimately, a vote. This vote does not concern that, except that it will make any subsequent vote on any issue clearer, more fair, and less open to challenge. There will be a clear method to determine a mandate conferred by a vote of the members.

== Language ==

== Language ==

Remove Section 5.1.2.1 of the Bylaws, which is what defines a process for modifying the quorum calculation, but has never been successfully or accurately executed.

Remove Section 5.1.2.1 of the Bylaws, which is what defines a process for modifying the quorum calculation, but has never been successfully or accurately executed.

Restores quorum to a simple 1/3 of Full Members. Definition of quorum remains the same. Definition of Full Member remains the same. All else remains the same and if passed, the bylaws will, for the first time, reflect actual practice and the historical experience of the conduct of a vote. You won't even feel a slight disturbance in the Force.  

Restores quorum to a simple 1/3 of Full Members. Definition of quorum remains the same. Definition of Full Member remains the same. All else remains the same and if passed, the bylaws will, for the first time since 2011, reflect actual practice and the historical experience of the conduct of a vote. You won't even feel a slight disturbance in the Force.  

===Existing Language ===

===Existing Language ===