Domain Admins
598
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 86:
Line 86: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Vote on 3 Policy Labels (view source)
Revision as of 16:48, 25 April 2015
, 16:48, 25 April 2015→Mistaken in thinking we had to pass policies: new section
* The membership is not able to vote to do anything unlawful, see [[Bylaws#Issues_Proper_for_a_Vote_of_the_Membership]] --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 11:39, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
* The membership is not able to vote to do anything unlawful, see [[Bylaws#Issues_Proper_for_a_Vote_of_the_Membership]] --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 11:39, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
* The thing I am most interested in is that the membership have the ability to apply our historically stringent process of ensuring the high quality of policies. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 11:41, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
* The thing I am most interested in is that the membership have the ability to apply our historically stringent process of ensuring the high quality of policies. --[[User:Hef|Hef]] ([[User talk:Hef|talk]]) 11:41, 25 April 2015 (CDT)
== Mistaken in thinking we had to pass policies ==
I've been talking this over with Carl and now I question that we needed to vote policies. Perhaps we just needed to post announcements that we've seen violations of of our insurance coverage and that
* people are not allowed to bring non service animals in to the space
* people are not allowed to drink between these times
And in addition, our insurance agent let us know that we need per-event coverage for events that xyz.
And if we want we could have reported back with the research Ryan did about how much it would be to get coverage for each of the above.
With all the conversations over the past few days I'm thinking that we didn't need to vote on and declare new policies.
We only needed to vote about whether we'd extend coverage for what we did and to vote not to add coverage for the other things. Then, if members want the other things they could vote to spend however much for new coverage (and presumably we'd vote no).