Changes

Kyle Bieneman from the mailing list:

Kyle Bieneman from the mailing list:

:I fully support revising the policy to make it more flexible and adaptable to varying needs. However, I have a basic threshold question, since we seem to sometimes play fast-and-loose with terminology:

:I fully support revising the policy to make it more flexible and adaptable to varying needs. However, I have a basic threshold question, since we seem to sometimes play fast-and-loose with terminology:

:What is a "policy" in a PS1 context? I see that we have at least one policy (the Conflict of Interest Policy) as part of our bylaws. Is that what we intend this policy to be as well, an amendment to the bylaws? If so, easy enough, though we should bear in mind that to make any exception to the policy, we'll need a 2-week lead time to propose a vote. If this, or any other policy, is something other than a bylaw, what differentiates it from a bylaw?

:What is a "policy" in a PS1 context? I see that we have at least one policy (the Conflict of Interest Policy) as part of our bylaws. Is that what we intend this policy to be as well, an amendment to the bylaws? If so, easy enough, though we should bear in mind that to make any exception to the policy, we'll need a 2-week lead time to propose a vote. If this, or any other policy, is something other than a bylaw, what differentiates it from a bylaw?

:Anyway, those are my thoughts/questions.

:Anyway, those are my thoughts/questions.

:::Kyle and all:

:::Kyle and all:

:::I also feel "bylaw" and "policy" are ambiguous as currently documented. On an ongoing basis I am doing a bylaw review to address issues like these. My goal is to clarify the differences between these two terms, make the bylaws a bit more high level and policies more low level and detailed. I'm sorry for the brevity but I am on a work site, but if anyone has any questions please feel free to private message. - Bioguy

:::I also feel "bylaw" and "policy" are ambiguous as currently documented. On an ongoing basis I am doing a bylaw review to address issues like these. My goal is to clarify the differences between these two terms, make the bylaws a bit more high level and policies more low level and detailed. I'm sorry for the brevity but I am on a work site, but if anyone has any questions please feel free to private message. - Bioguy

::Ryan Pierce from the mailing list:

::Ryan Pierce from the mailing list:

:::We should take this discussion to the Wiki discussion page. I'm not in a place where I can easily do this.

:::We should take this discussion to the Wiki discussion page. I'm not in a place where I can easily do this.

:::Kyle's follow-up:

:::Kyle's follow-up:

::::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.

That's an interesting point. I've heard suggestions that Bylaws changes should indeed require higher standards to change, possibly in terms of quorum, super-majority, review period for the vote, or even mandatory external legal counsel review. But, yes, that's a fight for another day. The best we can do now is to encourage people not to change or amend the Bylaws when a policy will suffice, as is happening here. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 20:52, 13 February 2015 (CST)

That's an interesting point. I've heard suggestions that Bylaws changes should indeed require higher standards to change, possibly in terms of quorum, super-majority, review period for the vote, or even mandatory external legal counsel review. But, yes, that's a fight for another day. The best we can do now is to encourage people not to change or amend the Bylaws when a policy will suffice, as is happening here. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 20:52, 13 February 2015 (CST)

: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:

: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).

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.

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.

Kyle Bieneman from the mailing list:

Kyle Bieneman from the mailing list:

: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 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 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)

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)