[dms-discuss] Upcoming vote

[Jeff Tolentino]

Agreed. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 5, 2014, at 5:47 PM, Jim Stewart <jstewart at jkmicro.com> wrote:

> Well said.
> 
> -jim
> 
> Braden wrote:
>> Hello Makers,
>> 
>> The bylaws state that for any meeting where some action will be taken, notice must be given no less than 5 days before that meeting, and the notice will include what that action is.
>> 
>> James gave such notice via email to this list on March 30, which states that the new business is to 'vote to adopt initial key policy', and includes the version of that initial key policy to be voted on at the end of the notice.
>> 
>> I would think the intent of the bylaws would indicate that no substantial changes could be made to the policy to be voted on as presented in the notice, otherwise it wouldn't be a very useful notice.
>> 
>> And given the contention over the issue of financial contributions, I'd say changing that piece would be a substantial change, so therefore if the initial key policy is voted on, I think it will have to be the one that includes the example of "Money and/or accepted tools" for criteria C "Must commit to donating back to the community through significant, responsible, and repeated contributions of time and effort to the space".
>> 
>> I would suggest that, since there has been plenty of opportunity for discussion on the issue, we should limit discussion at the meeting to some fixed amount of time, and then take the vote.  (After all, if the vote fails, that kicks us back into discussion territory anyway, as described in the bylaws: https://github.com/DavisMakerspace/doc-bylaws/blob/master/bylaws.md#approval-by-consensus-vote ).
>> 
>> As for my own position, I will *not* block consensus approval of the presented initial key policy.
>> 
>> This is despite that I too do *not* like the idea of "Money and/or accepted tools" as an example of the *sole* means by which to demonstrate commitment to "donating back to the community through significant, responsible, and repeated contributions of time and effort to the space".  I think it is a fine criteria to take into consideration, but that it just shouldn't be a *sufficient* condition on its own for key access.
>> 
>> But, in the end, we're a relatively small group who can still be flexible, so I feel the primary function of getting a policy in place is *not* to put something in stone that is all things to all people, but instead is to establish *something* that we can then iterate on as we get more data from putting it into practice.  After all, I think we are a pretty practical bunch, so I believe it is better for us to have something real in place to learn from and hack on.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>>   Braden
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 11:14:53AM -0700, Jim Stewart wrote:
>>> Tim,
>>> 
>>> I called for a vote on the proposal as it currently
>>> stands, and I'm assuming the vote will take place
>>> regardless of the current discussion.
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure if there's a mechanism to cancel the
>>> vote and start negotiating again.
>>> 
>>> In any case, I'm pretty firm on the position that
>>> financial contributions should be a path to keyholder
>>> status.  If you can come up with a proposal that would
>>> allow this under terms that you would be happy with,
>>> I'd be glad to listen.
>>> 
>>> -jim
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Tim F wrote:
>>>> April 3, 2014
>>>> 
>>>> Hi James and everyone --
>>>> 
>>>> So, if we do have a discussion before the vote, would we:
>>>> 
>>>> 1) Amend the proposal and then vote on the amended version that same night?
>>>> 
>>>> OR
>>>> 
>>>> 2) Amend the proposal and wait for five days or a week or whatever our waiting period is, and then vote on the amended version?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> 
>>>> -- Tim F
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>> On Thu, 4/3/14, James R Holliday <jrholliday at davismakerspace.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>  Subject: Re: [dms-discuss] Upcoming vote
>>>>  To: discuss at davismakerspace.org
>>>>  Date: Thursday, April 3, 2014, 1:17 PM
>>>> 
>>>>  Hey, Tim (and all):
>>>> 
>>>>  > I think that maybe James meant the "Initial" key policy
>>>>  which he
>>>>  > linked to, not the OLDER interim key policy?
>>>> 
>>>>  Correct.  "Interim" in the sense that others have
>>>>  stated they want to
>>>>  continue working on the policy, "initial" in the sense that
>>>>  we haven't
>>>>  officially adapted a policy yet.  I did intend to state
>>>>  that the
>>>>  language up for vote was based on the linked wiki
>>>>  page.  The language I
>>>>  intend to present for vote was included in the bottom of the
>>>>  email (just
>>>>  after the agenda).
>>>> 
>>>>  http://lists.davismakerspace.org/pipermail/announce/2014/000032.html
>>>> 
>>>>  > Since nobody else has responded, I'd like to ask that
>>>>  the line
>>>>  > "Money and/or accepted tools" be taken out of the
>>>>  proposal.
>>>> 
>>>>  There were--unfortunately for the sake of open discussion--a
>>>>  few
>>>>  responses that were not made to the group at large, but were
>>>>  in favor of
>>>>  continued monitary donations.  As you can see in my
>>>>  proposed text,
>>>>  "Money and/or accepted tools" was included as a
>>>>  source/method of
>>>>  "donating back to the community".
>>>> 
>>>>  At the meeting, before the vote, let's have a *quick*
>>>>  discussion among
>>>>  eligble voters whether to strike that line.
>>>> 
>>>>  -James
>> _______________________________________________
>> Davis Makerspace Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org
>> http://lists.davismakerspace.org/listinfo/discuss
>> .
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Davis Makerspace Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.davismakerspace.org
> http://lists.davismakerspace.org/listinfo/discuss