833
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 146:
Line 146: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Vote on 3 Policy Labels (view source)
Revision as of 15:36, 26 April 2015
, 15:36, 26 April 2015no edit summary
The Board's authority to create policy under the current Bylaws stems from a power to "fulfill any obligations to ensure the health of the organization." While I recognize some persons worry that this could be loosely interpreted, I'd like to hope that the membership isn't going to assume an "evil board" that would abuse this. So the Bylaws set a high bar for the Board to enact a policy immediately.
The Board's authority to create policy under the current Bylaws stems from a power to "fulfill any obligations to ensure the health of the organization." While I recognize some persons worry that this could be loosely interpreted, I'd like to hope that the membership isn't going to assume an "evil board" that would abuse this. So the Bylaws set a high bar for the Board to enact a policy immediately.
This proposal allows the Board to implement *any* policy immediately. So it lowers the bar. A member who wants to propose a policy has to wait for it to be voted on, and it must pass before it becomes effective. But this proposal gives the Board a path unavailable to the general membership to create any policy it wants, without having to pass the high bar of "obligation" or really any bar, and it can be enforced from Day 1. The Board plays by very different rules here; member votes routinely fail due to lack of quorum, but via this mechanism, lack of quorum means the policy stays in force another week.
This proposal allows the Board to implement *any* policy immediately. So it lowers the bar. A member who wants to propose a policy has to wait for it to be voted on, and it must pass before it becomes effective. But this proposal gives the Board a path unavailable to the general membership to create any po--[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 10:36, 26 April 2015 (CDT)licy it wants, without having to pass the high bar of "obligation" or really any bar, and it can be enforced from Day 1. The Board plays by very different rules here; member votes routinely fail due to lack of quorum, but via this mechanism, lack of quorum means the policy stays in force another week.
This fundamentally changes the structure of the organization. Right now I'd categorize it as "All policy authority rests in the membership, except in the case of legal and contractual obligations." This proposal gives the Board far more power and flexibility to create policy. Since the Board under this proposal would have the most efficient policy creation tools, it may become expected that the Board should use them, and that all policies really should originate with the Board. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 09:57, 26 April 2015 (CDT)
This fundamentally changes the structure of the organization. Right now I'd categorize it as "All policy authority rests in the membership, except in the case of legal and contractual obligations." This proposal gives the Board far more power and flexibility to create policy. Since the Board under this proposal would have the most efficient policy creation tools, it may become expected that the Board should use them, and that all policies really should originate with the Board. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 09:57, 26 April 2015 (CDT)
== Automatic extension prevents further editing ==
It sounds like the timeline is:
A. Board enacts temporary policy
B. (>=1 week from A) Board locks down language
C. (>=1 week from B, <3 weeks from A) First member vote on temporary policy
D. Each week thereafter, if quorum isn't met, another vote
Right now, with a member vote, if a late comment comes in after language lockdown that would fundamentally improve the vote, the sponsor can withdraw the vote and push it back a week. And, with a member vote, if quorum fails, the member can resubmit it as-is or can adjust it based on comments. If it can't be modified the evening it fails, then it pushes the next vote out two weeks.
With this process, it seems like the steering wheel gets torn out of the car after Step B. If a good comment comes in late, the Board can't push Step C back to incorporate it without causing the temporary policy to lapse. Also, the automatic extensions for Step D seem to prohibit further modifications if good input was received in the interim. So the rigid timeline here may result in lower quality than would be expected with member votes. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 10:36, 26 April 2015 (CDT)