Domain Admins
598
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + + Line 42:
Line 50: + + + Line 244:
Line 255: + + + + + + Line 249:
Line 266: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→distinction between member and board member
== Nomenclature ==
I generally like where you're going with the taxonomy of policy at PS:One. I like the ring of 'Member Created Policy' more for things that exist to satisfy outside agents - there's less colloquial connotation. Can we use that phrase in the language of this vote? --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 08:08, 14 July 2015 (CDT)
=== Nomenclature adjusted ===
Sounds good to me. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 08:48, 19 July 2015 (CDT)
== For Posterity ==
== For Posterity ==
Because the email forum can just eat history like a black hole... --[[User:Lucas|Lucas]] ([[User talk:Lucas|talk]]) 20:44, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
Because the email forum can just eat history like a black hole... --[[User:Lucas|Lucas]] ([[User talk:Lucas|talk]]) 20:44, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
== pointless or dangerous ==
== pointless or dangerous ==
The language has been gutted, so my points here are no longer as applicable.
----
:Most of this section was written by [[User:CarlFK]]. There's a lot in here to dispute, so I'm going to inline most of my comments. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (CDT)
:Most of this section was written by [[User:CarlFK]]. There's a lot in here to dispute, so I'm going to inline most of my comments. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (CDT)
== Problems with Draft 3 language ==
== Problems with Draft 3 language ==
The language, for reference:
* Members of Pumping Station: One will continue to honor contractual agreements of the space.
* All members of Pumping Station: One may curate documentation on contractual obligations of Pumping Station: One,
be it in electronic or hard copy form.
As it is written now, PS:One's members have become obligated to pay the rent, seeing as they individually must honor the contractual agreements of the space. Also, if this is supposed to eliminate the need for the insurance-related policies, it doesn't work. It only applies to members. So it follows that the guest of a member, or a non-member attending a public event, isn't bound by the organization's contracts, so they can bring their dog and get drunk after 2 AM. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 15:28, 9 May 2015 (CDT)
As it is written now, PS:One's members have become obligated to pay the rent, seeing as they individually must honor the contractual agreements of the space. Also, if this is supposed to eliminate the need for the insurance-related policies, it doesn't work. It only applies to members. So it follows that the guest of a member, or a non-member attending a public event, isn't bound by the organization's contracts, so they can bring their dog and get drunk after 2 AM. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 15:28, 9 May 2015 (CDT)
:Sorry, what's the problem with this? The members '''ARE''', in fact, obligated to pay the rent. The members are the stakeholders of Pumping Station: One, NFP. So from a legal standpoint this is '''probably''' the most correct way to put it. And you are correct that these policies only apply to members. All of our policies and bylaws apply only to members. There is no expectation that someone who is not a member and has not agreed to our member agreement/bylaws/policies is bound by them. A '''guest''' of the space is exactly that. A guest. And they are only allowed to be in the space as long as a member allows them to be. We can ask a guest to leave for any reason, whether we have a policy about it or not. If someone who is not a member breaks our rules and the member who is hosting that guest refuses to do anything about it, then that member would be held responsible for the actions of their guest.
:Sorry, what's the problem with this? The members '''ARE''', in fact, obligated to pay the rent. The members are the stakeholders of Pumping Station: One, NFP. So from a legal standpoint this is '''probably''' the most correct way to put it. And you are correct that these policies only apply to members. All of our policies and bylaws apply only to members. There is no expectation that someone who is not a member and has not agreed to our member agreement/bylaws/policies is bound by them. A '''guest''' of the space is exactly that. A guest. And they are only allowed to be in the space as long as a member allows them to be. We can ask a guest to leave for any reason, whether we have a policy about it or not. If someone who is not a member breaks our rules and the member who is hosting that guest refuses to do anything about it, then that member would be held responsible for the actions of their guest.
:And just to get terribly pedantic, the bylaws '''do''' state that [[Bylaws#Membership_Agreement_Amendment|guests must abide by the member agreement]]. It would be the responsibility of that guest's host to make sure their guest is aware of what they can and cannot do in Pumping Station: One. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 09:51, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
:And just to get terribly pedantic, the bylaws '''do''' state that [[Bylaws#Membership Agreement Amendment|guests must abide by the member agreement]]. It would be the responsibility of that guest's host to make sure their guest is aware of what they can and cannot do in Pumping Station: One. --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 09:51, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
::Justin, you need to go get your money back from I Just Pulled It Out of My Ass College of Law. Your post is ''alarmingly'' poorly informed. I'm only going to start with the first bit, which seems to reflect a misunderstanding about the consequences of the new proposal that others also share.
::Justin, you need to go get your money back from I Just Pulled It Out of My Ass College of Law. Your post is ''alarmingly'' poorly informed. I'm only going to start with the first bit, which seems to reflect a misunderstanding about the consequences of the new proposal that others also share.
::"The members '''ARE''', in fact, obligated to pay the rent. The members are the stakeholders of Pumping Station: One, NFP. So from a legal standpoint this is '''probably''' the most correct way to put it. " Nonsense. Pumping Station One has a lease with Tony, not any individual members. I'm not paying the rent. Are you? Pull your thinking cap on tighter if you want to get "pedantic" and argue about that. [[User:Jason|Jason]] ([[User talk:Jason|talk]]) 11:24, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
::"The members '''ARE''', in fact, obligated to pay the rent. The members are the stakeholders of Pumping Station: One, NFP. So from a legal standpoint this is '''probably''' the most correct way to put it. " Nonsense. Pumping Station One has a lease with Tony, not any individual members. I'm not paying the rent. Are you? Pull your thinking cap on tighter if you want to get "pedantic" and argue about that. [[User:Jason|Jason]] ([[User talk:Jason|talk]]) 11:24, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
:::Jason, are you agreeing with Ryan that the language of the vote is bad, or are you just disagreeing with me. I'm okay with being wrong. I am not a lawyer. What is your opinion on the language as it stands now? --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 12:07, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
:::Jason, are you agreeing with Ryan that the language of the vote is bad, or are you just disagreeing with me. I'm okay with being wrong. I am not a lawyer. What is your opinion on the language as it stands now? --[[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 12:07, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
:: Justin, to address your second point, I agree that guests are required to follow the membership agreement. But the Draft 3 vote text does not modify the membership agreement explicitly. All it does is require members (not guests) to honor the space's contracts (which as Jason said is seriously problematic) and lets members curate a list of contractual obligations the members must follow. It doesn't somehow create House Rules that apply to everyone. It therefore only affects members and not guests. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 12:20, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
:I am a little concerned by the implication of this version of the language that members are individually responsible for fulfilling the organization's obligations. I don't know if there are situations in which this policy language would cause an issue (are the policies the membership votes on binding in any context outside of our organization? I don't know), but I have to wonder what this vague assertion "gets us". --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 14:01, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
:: My intention is that the the language is not meant to binding outside the context of the organization. If it caries that implication, I am going to change the language. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
:: During the previous meeting with the directors, several member's maintained that writing policies to comply with insurance was required for the health of the organization because members were not under any obligation to comply with with insurance. I don't agree with that idea, and feel that members do need to comply with insurance rules. Because this disagreement affects issues appropriate for a vote of the board of directors, I'd like one interpretation to become the clear interpretation. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (CDT)
::: I understand that you're trying to limit the Board's power to enact policies pertaining to obligations by fixing the specifics of insurance. But just fixing that doesn't do anything to change the Board's power to enact policies. That stems from the Bylaws, and you can't take power away from the Board if it is granted by the Bylaws unless you change the Bylaws. Just creating an alternate means to handle insurance related stuff doesn't mean this Board or another Board years down the road will utilize it and will never create another policy when the Bylaws allows it.
::: Also, not every situation where the Board has to deal with obligations stems from insurance. This doesn't address the meat of the Events policy, which is only partly based on insurance. Binding members and even guests to the conditions of the insurance policy won't address many of the issues. We actually had a case recently where advertising went out for an event that implied illegal activity would happen. (I believe selling liquor without a license, and/or having a cover charge for a party which is illegal for us because we have no Chicago Public Place of Amusement license.) Even if no illegal activity does occur, the Board needs to be able to insist that an event organizer change their advertising if they want to use PS:One because we don't want to bring the cops down on us. In this case, the event organizer was understanding and accommodating, but that isn't always guaranteed. If someone digs their heels in, we may not have time to get a proper vote done before the event in question.
::: 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 other's opinions.
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.
I'm going to try and summarize opinions as accurately as I can, feel free to correct where inaccurate or misrepresented:
* 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.
** My opinions are definitely complicated and varied to describe. I believe the board did need to vote in these 3 policies, that the existing bylaws gave the board the authority to do so, and the main things the board did wrong were not to give the members timely communication about this nor initially solicit member feedback. I do not fear that the membership would vote against the 3 policies given the opportunity. But the vote process constrains PS:One when an immediate response is needed. And when contractual or legal obligations are involved, and there really isn't a valid choice to vote no, a member vote isn't appropriate, just as it isn't appropriate to have a member vote to pay the rent and utilities. I do value soliciting member comments and involvement to improve these kinds of policies, but I believe the benefits of this can be achieved without a member vote. I am concerned with what I believe is a member initiative to strip the board of the power needed to do its job, and while most people haven't directly attacked anyone, these past few weeks have still been living hell for the board, have sucked the board of the time and energy needed to deal with other necessary things, and have harmed PS:One's sustainability by discouraging many members from ever wanting to run for the board themselves. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 07:42, 13 May 2015 (CDT)
* 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, but she seems interested in no one accusing the board of wrongdoing.
** I appreciate that you've been trying to understand where people are coming from. My concern isn't that no one accuse the board. I think it's healthy for the membership to make sure that the Board, Area Hosts, people holding volunteer positions, etc. are acting in the best interest of the space. However, I would like to see this happen without people falling into an us vs. them mentality. I believe that member animosity leads to board burnout, which leads to fewer people wanting to be on the board, and therefore a less sustainable space. I would like there to be empathy for different points of view on *all* sides, and a recognition that these are all human beings who are writing and working on these policies, votes, etc. I would like PS:One to have the necessary legal, insurance, and contractual structure to sustain a space with ~400 members, and I would like the membership to step up to provide the vision and "doing" of our do-ocracy. I would like this "middle ground" reality of PS:One recognized and celebrated in how we talk about ourselves.
The people I haven't talked to that I should before addressing a larger audience:
* 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
* ensure member involvement in policy making.
* Keep member over site on policies high
** 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.
* Ensure that subgroups (directors, area hosts, authorizers) of PS:One can set rules in PS:One that the entirety of PS:One would have set anyway. Uncertainty on the outcome of rule making decisions should lead to a larger subgroup or the entirety of the membership being involved.
--[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 00:49, 13 May 2015 (CDT)
== Confused by current language ==
Does the current language only propose that the "board policy" wiki pages be renamed? [[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 17:47, 20 July 2015 (CDT)
I talked to Hef a bit to clarify my confusion. From what I understand, the intent of the vote is to make the policies not binding as votes, but still in place as policies that are created by and able to be curated by members. The language doesn't communicate that to me. I don't have a good suggestion for replacement language. [[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 11:01, 21 July 2015 (CDT)
The term "member curated policies" is not defined in the Bylaws. No official document defines the term or grants authority to individual members to make or curate policies. And I question how it could possibly work in practice if multiple members end up "curating" policy via a wiki edit war, which is very possible if just 2 out of nearly 400 members disagree on what the policy should say. This term only appears in Hef's "handy-dandy guide" but Hef's document was never approved by vote by either the membership or the Board, and it cannot be considered official. If this vote passes as written and the three policies in question change status and become "member curated policies" instead of Board-voted policies, then I can only conclude that they would all become null and void. It is questionable if the Board could enforce them. These policies were designed to prevent PS:One's exposure to uninsured liability, which would leave the organization and the Board personally liable to defend against a lawsuit that our insurance won't defend, as well as to prevent members from taking actions that would jeopardize 501(c)(3) status for the organization. If an incident happened, the organization and directors would need to assert these policies as defenses. But if they are not valid as policies, they will not serve this purpose. If this vote passes as currently written, it would dangerously expose the organization and the directors personally to legal liability. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 08:11, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
:Curation is not defined, and one way to address that could be to review and reuse applicable Wikipedia policies for editing articles such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Verifiability]. [[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 08:25, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
::And if the objection to curation is that someone will vandalize a page, then my comment on vandalism being a violation of member agreement should cover that objection? [[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 08:28, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
:I think wiki vandalism is a violation of the membership agreement. and we can review and reuse the Wikipedia[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Vandalism] page for help in deciding what falls under vandalism. [[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 08:25, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
:::Vandalism implies ill will. Two members could have a legitimate disagreement over a matter of policy. I don't see how this could be resolved definitively without resorting to a board or member vote. JFDI is not appropriate to set policy that actually needs to be enforced or which the organization needs to rely upon for a legal defense. It has no official standing, so it would need a vote to delegate this authority, and to define procedures to govern conflict resolution, otherwise any JFDI Policy is invalid. It sounds like this would give any one of four hundred members the power to bind the other 399. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 10:04, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
:::: If members are confused, then they will work to gather consensus. If they cannot gather consensus, and if someone resorts to bad behavior, then it is vandalism and covered under membership agreement. [[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 10:12, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
:It seems to me that this would be a fairly normal, easy, and generally acceptable practice. We start with using so-called member curated policies. And I think most of the time people are okay with those and willing to follow them. If there is general disagreement about the policy, then we should move up to a member vote to clarify the issue. These member curated policies can be enacted quickly without any need to wait for bureaucracy to work it out, and they can also be modified quickly when we need to. I don't think the discussion about vandalism on the wiki is really relevant. Nobody really expects the wiki to be the end-all be-all of policy for PS:1. Every policy relies on enforcement from actual real people to work. No one will accept that the policy has somehow changed just because someone went in to the wiki and edited the policy to say "No one may use auto-focus on the laser, '''except John Doe.''' Really, people just aren't that dumb. As it is, I can already go and edit any policy or bylaws page (it is a wiki after all). But that wouldn't change what the policy is, it would just make that wiki page wrong (and the change would soon be reverted by those who watch the changelog pretty closely). The same is true for member curated polices, which may not even have a wiki page. They might just be a sign in the shop that says "Don't do X." Changing the wiki page (if it exists) doesn't change the member curated policy. It only changes when the majority of people agree to the change and know about it. [[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 10:42, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
== distinction between member and board member ==
The background language has "I have never seen the membership and the board as two distinct groups." but non-board members do not have the same liabilities. I don't know if you want to change this language or not. It is your vote, and "I ..." is accurate since it describes belief. But I want to point out that a lot of the controversy about this vote does come down to the board members being liable for things that non-board members are not liable for. [[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 11:01, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
:I think one important point that maybe has been missed is that even though the board may have more liabilities than other members, those liabilities do not grant additional rights to board members above and beyond the rights of any other member. That may be a bit hard to swallow for anyone who is currently a board member, but it is true. While I, personally, certainly support doing things to help protect our board members from bad things happening, changing policy to protect board members is not something that can be considered "for the health of the organization" (as stated in the bylaws as votes proper for the board of the directors) so much as it is "for the health of the board members". I think it's important to keep that distinction in mind. Thinking about it this way, however, does not make the board powerless to protect themselves in my opinion. They have the same power as any other member of the organization to work to make things better, and we want to keep that amount of power to change things for the better strong. For everybody. [[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 11:10, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
::Yeah, speaking as a board member, I didn't realize I had extra liability until after the board member orientation. (ignorance on my part about corporations and boards, no one's fault). After all the discussion that happened after the board vote, I realized that if members decide to do soemthing and I can't bear the liability, that I have the freedom to quit. I'm not sure this is the best attitude for me to have -- this means that people who find risk acceptable have more privilege -- so it means people who are vulnerable will not be board members. I don't like it. I'm relatively privileged since I am a middle class person, but I have a chronic medical condition and so I need a steady income and a reliable source of insurance. People who are more vulnerable than me would have even more problems. If only white middle-class or upper-class people can deal with liability risks then we have a stupid space. ... this is all just stupid brainstorming on my part. at first I thought only eccentric rich people would continue to be on a board like this but someone pointed out to me that rich people have more to lose. maybe they'd have to be very eccentric. maybe this is all a big brain fart. sorry! [[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 11:30, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
:::Actually skay, I think part of the point is that being on the board does not grant you additional privileges above any other member. So someone who is less privileged (i.e. they can at least afford to be a full member, but maybe not much more than that) would be able to have just as much impact in the organization as someone who can handle the liabilities that come along with being on the board. Historically speaking, I haven't seen board members suffering financially (at least not because they were on the board, there were definitely some members early on who contributed extra money to the space to help us make rent, but we're not really in that situation anymore), so I think it's mostly a moot point. It's more fantastical legal boogeymen than it is a real threat. And I'm not a huge fan of being governed by fictions. [[User:Justin|Justin]] ([[User talk:Justin|talk]]) 16:27, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
::::I meant privilege in terms of social inequality not in terms of what someone gets from an office. but I agree with you about not being governed by fictions. I think it's unlikely that everyone will decide to do something so stupid as to be damaging to the existence of the organization.
::Justin, what you posted was highly offensive. Suggesting that the Board is acting solely to save their own skin is completely fallacious. In the case of a lawsuit not covered by insurance where the directors are sued personally, the organization also gets sued and has to defend itself. If this bankrupts the directors, it also probably bankrupts the organization. The directors' desire to reduce the organization's exposure to uninsured liability is, first and foremost, an attempt to keep PS:One from being sued into bankruptcy. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 12:08, 28 July 2015 (CDT)
:::I don't think he meant to be offensive. I just think he is taking a radical stance, similar to the stance of eviljoel on the mailing list. If a majority of the members feel this way, then so be it. [[User:Skm|Skm]] ([[User talk:Skm|talk]]) 12:10, 28 July 2015 (CDT)