3,430
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 276:
Line 276: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Notes from in person discussions.: new section
::: And this doesn't address other unforeseen situations. Hypothetical case: We have a lease obligation to handle exterminators. Let's say we've got an infestation of something affecting Tony, who insists we take care of it immediately by fumigating the space. Because hiring exterminators relates to a lease obligation, the Board can enact a policy barring all members from going into the space during a 48 hour period. What then? A member might have a deadline and decide he's going to use the space anyway, since he's entitled to 24/7 access, and the Board doesn't have the authority to tell him no. In this case, a Board with the power to make policy related to the space's obligations would be really useful. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 00:33, 12 May 2015 (CDT)
::: And this doesn't address other unforeseen situations. Hypothetical case: We have a lease obligation to handle exterminators. Let's say we've got an infestation of something affecting Tony, who insists we take care of it immediately by fumigating the space. Because hiring exterminators relates to a lease obligation, the Board can enact a policy barring all members from going into the space during a 48 hour period. What then? A member might have a deadline and decide he's going to use the space anyway, since he's entitled to 24/7 access, and the Board doesn't have the authority to tell him no. In this case, a Board with the power to make policy related to the space's obligations would be really useful. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 00:33, 12 May 2015 (CDT)
== Notes from in person discussions. ==
I still consider this to be an important topic, and have been spending some time getting people on the same page as far as understanding each others actual opinions.
I'm going to try and summarize opinions as accurately as I can, feel free to correct where inaccurate:
considering the rather unfortunate amount of personal anger involved in the mailing list discussions, I have been pursing one on one discussions, and small group discussions where and when possible.
Loans: would be ok with a different name, so long as the name carried appropriate impact. Believes the idea of a policy, board voted policy, and member voted policy is nebulous and that is a root cause of the current dispute.
Sevin: A name other than board voted policy would be better.
Ray: unknown, hasn't weighed in from what I can tell, but is decidedly not concerned with board member burnout, and doesn't feel the membership is out of control.
Ryan: Ryan's opinions are complicated and varied to describe. I believe he sees this as a power struggle between the board members and non board members. It is clear that he feels the board needed to vote in these 3 policies, and fears that the membership might vote against if given the opportunity.
Tom: believes that the 3 policies need to exist in order to ensure insurance compliance. believes that the board was right to vote them in.
Skay: Believes the 3 policies didn't need to be voted on, as they would already be in effect, and that the only thing that was required is that the membership be informed.
Jenny: unknown, hasn't weighed in from what I can tell.
Kuroishi: Was not present for the vote, I think he feels that the policy votes were not necessary, but I am less certain of his opinion.
Justin: Interested in ensuring the org is member run
Carl: Interested in ensuring that participation in policy making is not a hard requirement
Jason: He wanted to talk to me, but we managed to miss each other. Seems interested in no one making polices that are summarized as "we will obey the law"
Elizabeth: I havn't talked to her in person, she seems interested in no one accusing the board of wrongdoing.
The people I haven't talked to that I should:
* Jason
* Elizabeth
* Ray
Myself: I have been trying to clarify my opinion, and find I often end up disagreeing with previous revisions of my own opinion.
Here is a summery of what I want to achieve
* Keep member over site on policies high
* ensure member involvement in policy making.
** members are more accepting of policies they had the opportunity to be involved in
** larger groups produce better policies by bringing more information and experience and finding more loopholes
* keep the requirement for hard voted policies low, focus on the "be excellent"
* not get tied to bad policies
* not get stuck unable to adjust bad policies
* get clarification on whether or not members are already obligated to not break the insurance agreements if hard voted policies are absent.
* Allow the board members to protect the organization via a vote when a member vote is too inefficient to be effective
* Allow the board members to protect themselves from the increased liability they assume by being recognized by the state as director and operators.
--[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 00:49, 13 May 2015 (CDT)