Changes

::::This obviously goes somewhat beyond the scope of this particular vote, so I won't belabor the point, but as a general comment, while the above explanations tell me about how the group would like to categorize the rules, it doesn't tell me anything about how the rules interact with each other in a legal sense.  If a policy conflicts with the bylaws, do the bylaws supersede?  If we want bylaws to be changed less often, and policies more often, is there anything in our rules which promotes that?  Again, this is a fight for another day, but I'd just like to plant the seed here.  If we want to create a distinction between "Policies" and "Bylaws," that distinction is only really meaningful if it the two are actually legally different in some way (such as: votes for policies have a lower quorum requirement, votes to change bylaws require a supermajority, etc.).  Otherwise, all we've really done is arbitrarily chopped up our bylaws onto different pages based on how "big" we think the rules are.

::::This obviously goes somewhat beyond the scope of this particular vote, so I won't belabor the point, but as a general comment, while the above explanations tell me about how the group would like to categorize the rules, it doesn't tell me anything about how the rules interact with each other in a legal sense.  If a policy conflicts with the bylaws, do the bylaws supersede?  If we want bylaws to be changed less often, and policies more often, is there anything in our rules which promotes that?  Again, this is a fight for another day, but I'd just like to plant the seed here.  If we want to create a distinction between "Policies" and "Bylaws," that distinction is only really meaningful if it the two are actually legally different in some way (such as: votes for policies have a lower quorum requirement, votes to change bylaws require a supermajority, etc.).  Otherwise, all we've really done is arbitrarily chopped up our bylaws onto different pages based on how "big" we think the rules are.

== Ambiguity ==

== Ambiguity - Authority of Board vs. Area Hosts ==

Kyle Bieneman from the mailing list:

Kyle Bieneman from the mailing list:

:Assuming the intention is to incorporate this into the bylaws, my two suggestions on language are:

:Assuming the intention is to incorporate this into the bylaws, my two suggestions on language are:

:1) Reduce ambiguity regarding relative authority of the board vs. the area hosts.  In several places "The Board of Directors or an Area Host" are given authority to do certain things under the policy.  What happens if they disagree?  (Say the Board wants to require certification for a given tool, but the Area Host thinks that's unnecessary.)  I'd rather give authority to one or the other by default.  Either the Area Host (with the Board as back-up if the Area Host position is vacant or if the Host declines to make a ruling), or the Board (which could obviously ask the Area Host for advice).

:Reduce ambiguity regarding relative authority of the board vs. the area hosts.  In several places "The Board of Directors or an Area Host" are given authority to do certain things under the policy.  What happens if they disagree?  (Say the Board wants to require certification for a given tool, but the Area Host thinks that's unnecessary.)  I'd rather give authority to one or the other by default.  Either the Area Host (with the Board as back-up if the Area Host position is vacant or if the Host declines to make a ruling), or the Board (which could obviously ask the Area Host for advice).

:2) I would not constrain the Board/Area Host's authority to grant exceptions. The policy as written is so broad as not to be a meaningful restraint (virtually anything could be deemed "events that provide benefit to Pumping Station: One"), but formally writing a list of accepted situations where exceptions can be granted will simply provoke arguments down the line about whether the Board has authority to grant an exception in a given situation.

I considered this when drafting the policy. Ultimately, I had concerns about how long the policy was becoming, so I wanted to simplify this as much as possible.

:Anyway, those are my thoughts/questions.

What I would like to happen: The Area Hosts are the "boots on the ground." They should be the people making decisions for their areas. The Board would need to step in only when:

:Best,

:Kyle

 

Under the draft policy, it's technically possible for the Board to overrule an Area Host, and the Area Host overrules the Board, and the Board overrules the Area Host, etc. But practically, this would be a stupid move for the Area Host because the Board would likely remove the Area Host from office. I felt this situation was unlikely enough that it wasn't worth complicating the policy by setting up a more complicated decision making structure with escalation. I'm interested in hearing opinions on whether this is the right call. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 20:46, 13 February 2015 (CST)

 

 

 

I agree that the powers granted are extremely broad. But I believe keeping them is helpful because it encodes the intent of the policy within the policy itself. Five years from now, people may not remember *why* a given policy was written in a particular way. If the policy carries no constraints, a well-meaning Area Host could reasonably conclude that there isn't anything wrong with letting their non-member buddy spend an evening using our laser cutter. A well-meaning Area Host probably wouldn't grossly stretch definitions to allow this same situation with the policy as written. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 20:46, 13 February 2015 (CST)