[gentoo-nfp] Foundation membership and who can join

[gentoo-nfp] Foundation membership and who can join

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1253 bytes --]

Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition the
trustees for membership to the foundation.  What verification is done by
trustees is up in the air.  Members also seem to be members for life
unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the trustees.

I suggest we use and/or modify the existing staff quiz for use as a
guide for who to admit, as 'graded' by trustees.  I also suggest that
some for of positive acknowledgement that they will adhere to the CoC
would be helpful as well.

Now, some have floated the idea that the foundation membership is
somewhat defunct, and that may be the case.  Personally I think it
should be reaffirmed each year (or some other time period that is agreed
upon).  But to 'clean' it up I think we should ask the existing members
to at least agree to the CoC, and possibly also be staff.

It's also been suggested that the foundation (active) membership is
waning, so once / if we decide on an update to the membership policy I
think we should mail the lists petitioning for memebers (-dev -project
and maybe some others)

The above would be an update to the bylaws and I want feedback before I
propose it as an update.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Foundation membership and who can join

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2316 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition the
> trustees for membership to the foundation.  What verification is done by
> trustees is up in the air.  Members also seem to be members for life
> unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the trustees.


> I suggest we use and/or modify the existing staff quiz for use as a
> guide for who to admit, as 'graded' by trustees.  I also suggest that
> some for of positive acknowledgement that they will adhere to the CoC
> would be helpful as well.


I wouldn't use the term graded. Just add a requirement that they must have
passed the staff quiz, with a grandfather clause for existing members.

The CoC thing sounds fine, provided that you are willing to enforce it
(e.g. by terminated the membership of violators.) Exercise due care in how
this bylaw is worded.


>
> Now, some have floated the idea that the foundation membership is
> somewhat defunct, and that may be the case.  Personally I think it
> should be reaffirmed each year (or some other time period that is agreed
> upon).  But to 'clean' it up I think we should ask the existing members
> to at least agree to the CoC, and possibly also be staff.
>

I do not want to bifurcate (or trifurcate) the structure.

The community has 3 types of members:

1) Foundation members
2) Developers
3) Users

All three agree to the CoC implicitly by being a member of the community.
It would be agreeable to me to see more wording added to the bylaws that
members who violate the community guidelines could have the membership
revoked (in addition to any comrel action.) Again, careful on the wording
of such bylaws.


>
> It's also been suggested that the foundation (active) membership is
> waning, so once / if we decide on an update to the membership policy I
> think we should mail the lists petitioning for memebers (-dev -project
> and maybe some others)
>

I'm not going to recruit based on "suggestion." Either we have the data on
members or we don't. If we do, present it. If we don't, we should probably
get some data before acting.


> The above would be an update to the bylaws and I want feedback before I
> propose it as an update.
>
> --
> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3489 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-nfp] Foundation membership and who can join

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2886 bytes --]

On 2016.10.13 17:35, Matthew Thode wrote:
> Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition the
> trustees for membership to the foundation.  What verification is done
> by
> trustees is up in the air. 
An @gentoo.org email reduces things to formalities. Foundation 
membership for devs is opt in rather that opt out as a few devs in the
early days objected to opt out.
Opt out makes a vote of members very difficult as there will be a large
part of the membership who won't vote.

For non dev Foundation members, the contribution to Gentoo is checked.
bugsie, forums, #gentoo-*  and so on. What is acceptable to show 
support for Gentoo is indeed left to the trustees on a case by case basis.    

> Members also seem to be members for life
> unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the
> trustees.
or unless they fail to vote in two successive trustee elections.
This has not worked as well as was expected for keeping the 
membership current as we don't always hold a vote.
Trustee candidates can be elected unopposed.

> 
> I suggest we use and/or modify the existing staff quiz for use as a
> guide for who to admit, as 'graded' by trustees.  I also suggest that
> some for of positive acknowledgement that they will adhere to the CoC
> would be helpful as well.
> 
> Now, some have floated the idea that the foundation membership is
> somewhat defunct, and that may be the case.  Personally I think it
> should be reaffirmed each year (or some other time period that is
> agreed
> upon).  
That was the intent behind the 'two successive trustee elections',
which gives a period of two years.

But to 'clean' it up I think we should ask the existing
> members
> to at least agree to the CoC, and possibly also be staff.

That raises the bar to membership and dangles the carrot of a 
@gentoo.org and increases the workload on recruiters.
I'm not in favour of that combination.
It also raises the question of what project would such staffers belong
to?

We had one such case in the past. devrel (as they were) were very 
reluctant to agree a similar proposal at that time, even as an 
exception.

Non dev Foundation members typically contribute via Gentoo 
channels so the CoC behaviour is inferred. Enforcement is as it 
is for everyone. 

> 
> It's also been suggested that the foundation (active) membership is
> waning, so once / if we decide on an update to the membership policy I
> think we should mail the lists petitioning for memebers (-dev -project
> and maybe some others)

That never does any harm anyway.
> 
> The above would be an update to the bylaws and I want feedback before
> I
> propose it as an update.
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)



-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation membership and who can join

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Matthew Thode
<prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Current bylaws state that to become a member you need to petition the
> trustees for membership to the foundation.  What verification is done by
> trustees is up in the air.  Members also seem to be members for life
> unless they remove themselves are are removed by a vote of the trustees.
>
> I suggest we use and/or modify the existing staff quiz for use as a
> guide for who to admit, as 'graded' by trustees.  I also suggest that
> some for of positive acknowledgement that they will adhere to the CoC
> would be helpful as well.

We've already talked via IM, but some principles I have which probably
are worth just airing are:

We should have one standard for people who are "part of Gentoo."
Let's call them "staff" for the sake of argument.  Staff may or may
not commit to the tree (which is why I didn't use the term devs,
though I realize in practice we tend to use the two terms
interchangeably today).  However, they should be active contributors,
and there should be some kind of way of cleaning up people who aren't
active (the bar need not be super high).

Staff should be expected to adhere to the CoC, and should be all
subject to the same enforcement of it.  Staff should be automatically
members of the Foundation, and cease to be Foundation members when
they are no longer staff.  The Foundation should of course have a say
in the criteria for admission/removal as a result.  However, if we
want to be "one Gentoo" and stop being a "two headed monster" we need
to stop having multiple sets of criteria for how is and isn't a
member/voter/etc.

Developers with commit access are a subset of staff, and their commit
activity is subject to QA.  Staff who aren't developers are generally
not in the scope of QA.

There will need to be some teams responsible for administering people
getting in, and leaving (whether by inactivity, choice, or forcibly).
There will need to be a governance body with the final say in this.

I think if you start from this set of principles and work the rest
out, you're a lot more likely to end up with something that isn't a
two-headed beast.  You have one constituency, which is the start to
having a more unified leadership structure.  I don't think that this
addresses all the issues (not by a long shot), but having just one set
of members and standards and enforcement of those standards is
probably a necessary part of any solution.

-- 
Rich

[gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation membership and who can join

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1560 bytes --]

Some definitions

- All devs are staff

- All staff are voting foundation members

- You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)

- Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)



Proposal

- All prospective staff must apply to be Foundation members, allowing
for final approval by the trustees as is the current policy.  Anyone not
accepted will not be given staff membership.

- Any Foundation membership granted as a result of a staff position is
lost when the position as staff is concluded.

  - Any staff that is kicked or leaves during a ComRel incident may
appeal their incident with the appropriate body.  They will either
retain or lose both staff and foundation membership simultaneously.



Knock on effects

- May need to modify staff quiz.  Developers already take this so will
automatically satisfy this requirement.

Positive CoC acknowledgement should be included in the staff quiz

- By equating staff and Foundation membership we may have to change the
retirement criteria for staff.

- Staff will have to vote in Foundation elections.

- Staffers who are not devs do not belong to a project

  - projects could be made


Questions

- Do staff get gentoo.org email addresses?

  - I do not think it’s necessary
 (limits our liability (email addresses could be considered as loosing
property rights as mentioned elsewhere in one of these threads...), maybe)

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation membership and who can join

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:44 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The proposal does not make all members Gentoo staff.

Then, IMO, it isn't an improvement.  Certainly my intent was for it to
make all Foundation members Gentoo staff.

I think that all Foundation members should be staff, and all staff
should be Foundation members.  If somebody isn't qualified to be in
one, they shouldn't be in the other.  If somebody doesn't want to be
in one, they shouldn't be in the other.

I'm not suggesting that there should be some kind of onerous
requirement to be staff.

I think one of the biggest problems that you need to solve if you want
to try to reform the meta-structure is that we have multiple
constituencies right now.  My goal would be to fix that.  If somebody
isn't active enough to be considered staff, then they shouldn't be
voting on the governance of the distro.  If they're going to be voting
on governance, then they should be well-versed in how things work.

-- 
Rich

[gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation membership and who can join

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1588 bytes --]

Some definitions
- All devs are staff
- All staff are foundation members
- All foundation members are staff
- All foundation members are voting
- You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)
- Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)

Proposal
- All prospective staff must apply to be Foundation members, allowing
for final approval by the trustees as is the current policy.  Anyone not
accepted will not be given staff membership.
- Any Foundation membership granted as a result of a staff position is
lost when the position as staff is concluded.
  - Any staff that is kicked or leaves during a ComRel incident may
appeal their incident with the appropriate body.  They will either
retain or lose both staff and foundation membership simultaneously.

Knock on effects
- May need to modify staff quiz.  Developers already take this so will
automatically satisfy this requirement.  Positive CoC acknowledgement
should be included in the staff quiz.
- By equating staff and Foundation membership we may have to change the
retirement criteria for staff.
- Staff will have to vote in Foundation elections.
- Staffers who are not devs do not belong to a project
  - projects could be made

Questions
- Do staff get gentoo.org email addresses?
  - I do not think it’s necessary
 (limits our liability (email addresses could be considered as loosing
property rights as mentioned elsewhere in one of these threads...), maybe)

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation membership and who can join

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 805 bytes --]

On 10/13/2016 10:33 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 13, 2016, at 9:06 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Some definitions
>> - All devs are staff
>> - All staff are foundation members
>> - All foundation members are staff
>> - All foundation members are voting
>> - You can be staff without being a dev (forum, bugs, irc)
>> - Foundation membership is automatically revoked if you miss two
>> Foundation elections (not sure if this needs to change)
>>
> 
> So what happens, exactly, when a dev misses two elections? 
> 
> 

I'm not certain, I personally don't think that alone should be enough
for retirement, but perhaps a probation for a year (til next election)
then retirement if they don't vote again?

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation membership and who can join

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5018 bytes --]

On 10/14/2016 02:59 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> Personally I think the only requirement for being a foundation member is
> agreement to adhere to the CoC, and proof of contribution and
> involvement.  I do not think the contribution bar should be very high,
> as anyone with a purple and green heart should be welcome as a
> foundation member in my opinion, and anyone who loves gentoo and can
> behave decently enough not to damage it should be welcome.
> 
Ya, the staff quiz reasoning is just to make sure they know enough about
Gentoo and our policies to work well in the group.

> I also disagree that loss of membership in one should get you booted out
> of the other.   I will say, however, that if a person is forcibly
> removed from staff, the foundation's trustees should be notified.  If it
> was due to a CoC violation then there's a strong cause to have them
> removed as a foundation member.  If it was due to technical incompetence
> or due to breaking the tree one times too many, but they still can
> contribute in other ways, then no I don't think its proper to remove them.
> 
The way it's suggested to work for devs is commit (dev) access can be
revoked by council, they'd still remain as staff (dev would basically be
a 'flag').

> Furthermore, I don't think we should limit gentoo project staff roles,
> or foundation membership, to developers.  There are plenty of people who
> care about Gentoo who aren't technically inclined enough to be developers.
> 
> How about this:
> 
> 1.  The baseline role is "Gentoo loyalist" of some sort
> 
> To become a loyalist, you simply have to agree to the CoC.  This could
> even be an abstract social construct and only evaluated as needed.
> 
> A CoC violation is punishable, and will cause the person's "loyal"
> status to be revoked or suspended.  This part *automatically* suspends
> or revokes any other official roles, be it foundation member, developer,
> or staff.
> 
> 2.  Foundation member
> 
> To become a foundation member, you must be in good standing wrt the CoC,
> and make enough of a contribution to Gentoo that the trustees see fit to
> recruit you as a foundation member.  The standard they will use to judge
> you is being passionate enough about gentoo to be helpful in some way.
> 
> If you become "dead weight" or prove that you've lost your passion for
> gentoo, you get discharged as a member.
> 
> 3.  Developer
> 
> A developer is someone who has passed the ebuild quiz and demonstrated
> technical competence to where they can be trusted with direct access to
> the portage tree.
> 
> Technical incompetence, breaking the tree, violating project protocols,
> and the like can get your dev status yanked either temporarily or
> permanently or indefinitely.
> 
> 4.  Staff
> 
> A staff is anyone with any kind of authority or management role within
> gentoo.  You must take and pass the staff quiz.
> 
> Once you pass the staff quiz, you can be granted privileges on bugzilla,
> the forums, mailing lists, access to privileged resources on infra, etc.
> 
> If you screw up, you can be destaffed.
> 
> ----
> 
> I think that developer, staff, and foundation member should be kept
> separately toggled by circumstance.  Only for a CoC violation should
> there be any sort of "cascade" reaction that gets you booted from
> multiple roles automatically.
> 
> 5.  Council
> 
> A council member is someone who has been 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org
> <mailto:rich0@gentoo.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:44 PM, NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org
>     <mailto:NP-Hardass@gentoo.org>> wrote:
>     > The proposal does not make all members Gentoo staff.
> 
>     Then, IMO, it isn't an improvement.  Certainly my intent was for it to
>     make all Foundation members Gentoo staff.
> 
>     I think that all Foundation members should be staff, and all staff
>     should be Foundation members.  If somebody isn't qualified to be in
>     one, they shouldn't be in the other.  If somebody doesn't want to be
>     in one, they shouldn't be in the other.
> 
>     I'm not suggesting that there should be some kind of onerous
>     requirement to be staff.
> 
>     I think one of the biggest problems that you need to solve if you want
>     to try to reform the meta-structure is that we have multiple
>     constituencies right now.  My goal would be to fix that.  If somebody
>     isn't active enough to be considered staff, then they shouldn't be
>     voting on the governance of the distro.  If they're going to be voting
>     on governance, then they should be well-versed in how things work.
> 
>     --
>     Rich
> 
> 

I'm not totally sure about this because the main reason for reforming
the metastructure is to have a unified electorate and management
structure.  As long as we can use that I think it may work.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation membership and who can join

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4168 bytes --]

On 10/14/2016 10:43 AM, NP-Hardass wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 11:15 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This is why I oppose mooshing the roles together.
>>>
>>> An ebuild maintaining nerd/codemonkey type may have little interest in
>>> foundation politics, and vice versa.  We should not force them to shoulder
>>> roles they don't want.
>>>
>>> As long as they're willing to play nice with the community, they should be
>>> allowed to offer their support in any way they see fit.  I don't think
>>> putting vote quotas on anyone is going to help.
>>>
>>
>> It is a valid argument, but it does then lead to the situation where
>> we have diverging foundation and dev membership, which means that if
>> you post the same question to both groups, you could get different
>> answers, and thus conflict.
>>
>> However, this could be mitigated a great deal if we still purged
>> foundation members who are no longer active staff/devs, while keeping
>> foundation membership optional for those who are, and if somebody
>> loses foundation membership due to not voting they could ask to be
>> allowed back in.  Then while somebody might not be voting for who the
>> Trustees are, they can't really complain because they need only ask
>> for the ability to vote for them, and crisis could be averted.
>>
> 
> What exactly are the requirements for quorum as necessitated by NM law?
> How do explicit abstains from a vote affect that if they do?   If
> explicit abstention is allowed, then make voting completely compulsory,
> and those that do not feel that they have a desire to put a filled
> ballot forward are required to submit a ballot of abstention.   This
> might alleviate some of the concerns of developers being forced to vote
> for trustees, while still putting developers in a position where they
> have to weigh what degree they wish to weigh in on such a matter.
> IANAL, but my suspicion is that the law only mandates that a quorum be
> present, not that a quorum vote one way or another.  According to this
> document [1], abstentions only affect votes where the
> quorum/majority/unanimity is required of *present* voters, thus votes
> where only quorum/majority/unanimity of total votes is required,
> abstention is removed entirely from the assessment of quorum for the
> decision itself.
> 
I think I found it.

http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art11.pdf
page 93 - 53-11-32

I wasn't able to find any info on abstaining.  As far as I could tell a
'rolling quorum' (just those present) can't make decisions.

http://www.nmag.gov/uploads/files/Publications/ComplianceGuides/Open%20Meetings%20Act%20Compliance%20Guide%202015.pdf

> Note, in the document from NM [2], I couldn't find specific reference to
> this (and we should speak to a lawyer), but there are some points where
> quorum is discussed of present members and some where it is discussed in
> relation to the entirety of the body.
> 
> TL;DR: It might be possible to force all to vote, and but permit
> abstentions in the case of the trustees election.  This might allow an
> easier time aligning the bodies while not forcing developers to forcibly
> vote where they might not have an opinion.
> 
> Please note, the above might be worth looking into regardless of whether
> we align the voting bodies as it might make achieving a quorum in future
> votes more attainable.
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of quorum requirements, if we align the Foundation and Staff
> memberships, and make voting compulsory (within a 2 year period), it
> might be wise to loosen the voting periods to make it easier for members
> to vote, i.e. if voting is open for 2 weeks currently, make it open for
> 4 weeks as a month should be ample time to cast a vote, whether it be
> abstention (if allowed) or a filled ballot.
> 
> 
> 
Altering what constitutes a quorum can only be done by altering the
articles of incorporation (as far as I can tell).  We might be able to
extend the voting period though.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation membership and who can join

[NP-Hardass]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5099 bytes --]

On 10/14/2016 12:20 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 10:43 AM, NP-Hardass wrote:
>> On 10/14/2016 11:15 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> This is why I oppose mooshing the roles together.
>>>>
>>>> An ebuild maintaining nerd/codemonkey type may have little interest in
>>>> foundation politics, and vice versa.  We should not force them to shoulder
>>>> roles they don't want.
>>>>
>>>> As long as they're willing to play nice with the community, they should be
>>>> allowed to offer their support in any way they see fit.  I don't think
>>>> putting vote quotas on anyone is going to help.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is a valid argument, but it does then lead to the situation where
>>> we have diverging foundation and dev membership, which means that if
>>> you post the same question to both groups, you could get different
>>> answers, and thus conflict.
>>>
>>> However, this could be mitigated a great deal if we still purged
>>> foundation members who are no longer active staff/devs, while keeping
>>> foundation membership optional for those who are, and if somebody
>>> loses foundation membership due to not voting they could ask to be
>>> allowed back in.  Then while somebody might not be voting for who the
>>> Trustees are, they can't really complain because they need only ask
>>> for the ability to vote for them, and crisis could be averted.
>>>
>>
>> What exactly are the requirements for quorum as necessitated by NM law?
>> How do explicit abstains from a vote affect that if they do?   If
>> explicit abstention is allowed, then make voting completely compulsory,
>> and those that do not feel that they have a desire to put a filled
>> ballot forward are required to submit a ballot of abstention.   This
>> might alleviate some of the concerns of developers being forced to vote
>> for trustees, while still putting developers in a position where they
>> have to weigh what degree they wish to weigh in on such a matter.
>> IANAL, but my suspicion is that the law only mandates that a quorum be
>> present, not that a quorum vote one way or another.  According to this
>> document [1], abstentions only affect votes where the
>> quorum/majority/unanimity is required of *present* voters, thus votes
>> where only quorum/majority/unanimity of total votes is required,
>> abstention is removed entirely from the assessment of quorum for the
>> decision itself.
>>
> I think I found it.
> 
> http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art11.pdf
> page 93 - 53-11-32
> 
> I wasn't able to find any info on abstaining.  As far as I could tell a
> 'rolling quorum' (just those present) can't make decisions.
> 
> http://www.nmag.gov/uploads/files/Publications/ComplianceGuides/Open%20Meetings%20Act%20Compliance%20Guide%202015.pdf
> 
My understanding (once again IANAL) of rolling quorum (along with some
outside reading) is that it is when the discussions for a quorum are not
held publicly during the meeting, but outside of the public meeting [1]
"The quorum doesn’t need to be in the same room to hold a meeting; they
might discuss public business in a series of e-mails or phone calls,
over several days. This is called a rolling quorum, and it’s illegal
unless the participants follow all the requirements of the Open Meetings
Act."

I should note, both of those links, the one from the previous email on
the Open Meetings Act and [1] might just be for government/public
organizations and not corporations.  I'm really not sure.  I was just
doing my best to find something NM related XD
>> Note, in the document from NM [2], I couldn't find specific reference to
>> this (and we should speak to a lawyer), but there are some points where
>> quorum is discussed of present members and some where it is discussed in
>> relation to the entirety of the body.
>>
>> TL;DR: It might be possible to force all to vote, and but permit
>> abstentions in the case of the trustees election.  This might allow an
>> easier time aligning the bodies while not forcing developers to forcibly
>> vote where they might not have an opinion.
>>
>> Please note, the above might be worth looking into regardless of whether
>> we align the voting bodies as it might make achieving a quorum in future
>> votes more attainable.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regardless of quorum requirements, if we align the Foundation and Staff
>> memberships, and make voting compulsory (within a 2 year period), it
>> might be wise to loosen the voting periods to make it easier for members
>> to vote, i.e. if voting is open for 2 weeks currently, make it open for
>> 4 weeks as a month should be ample time to cast a vote, whether it be
>> abstention (if allowed) or a filled ballot.
>>
>>
>>
> Altering what constitutes a quorum can only be done by altering the
> articles of incorporation (as far as I can tell).  We might be able to
> extend the voting period though.
> 


-- 
NP-Hardass

[1] http://nmfog.org/public-meeting/


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation membership and who can join

[NP-Hardass]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5523 bytes --]

On 10/14/2016 12:33 PM, NP-Hardass wrote:
> On 10/14/2016 12:20 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
>> On 10/14/2016 10:43 AM, NP-Hardass wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2016 11:15 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> This is why I oppose mooshing the roles together.
>>>>>
>>>>> An ebuild maintaining nerd/codemonkey type may have little interest in
>>>>> foundation politics, and vice versa.  We should not force them to shoulder
>>>>> roles they don't want.
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as they're willing to play nice with the community, they should be
>>>>> allowed to offer their support in any way they see fit.  I don't think
>>>>> putting vote quotas on anyone is going to help.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a valid argument, but it does then lead to the situation where
>>>> we have diverging foundation and dev membership, which means that if
>>>> you post the same question to both groups, you could get different
>>>> answers, and thus conflict.
>>>>
>>>> However, this could be mitigated a great deal if we still purged
>>>> foundation members who are no longer active staff/devs, while keeping
>>>> foundation membership optional for those who are, and if somebody
>>>> loses foundation membership due to not voting they could ask to be
>>>> allowed back in.  Then while somebody might not be voting for who the
>>>> Trustees are, they can't really complain because they need only ask
>>>> for the ability to vote for them, and crisis could be averted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What exactly are the requirements for quorum as necessitated by NM law?
>>> How do explicit abstains from a vote affect that if they do?   If
>>> explicit abstention is allowed, then make voting completely compulsory,
>>> and those that do not feel that they have a desire to put a filled
>>> ballot forward are required to submit a ballot of abstention.   This
>>> might alleviate some of the concerns of developers being forced to vote
>>> for trustees, while still putting developers in a position where they
>>> have to weigh what degree they wish to weigh in on such a matter.
>>> IANAL, but my suspicion is that the law only mandates that a quorum be
>>> present, not that a quorum vote one way or another.  According to this
>>> document [1], abstentions only affect votes where the
>>> quorum/majority/unanimity is required of *present* voters, thus votes
>>> where only quorum/majority/unanimity of total votes is required,
>>> abstention is removed entirely from the assessment of quorum for the
>>> decision itself.
>>>
>> I think I found it.
>>
>> http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art11.pdf
>> page 93 - 53-11-32
>>
>> I wasn't able to find any info on abstaining.  As far as I could tell a
>> 'rolling quorum' (just those present) can't make decisions.
>>
>> http://www.nmag.gov/uploads/files/Publications/ComplianceGuides/Open%20Meetings%20Act%20Compliance%20Guide%202015.pdf
>>
> My understanding (once again IANAL) of rolling quorum (along with some
> outside reading) is that it is when the discussions for a quorum are not
> held publicly during the meeting, but outside of the public meeting [1]
> "The quorum doesn’t need to be in the same room to hold a meeting; they
> might discuss public business in a series of e-mails or phone calls,
> over several days. This is called a rolling quorum, and it’s illegal
> unless the participants follow all the requirements of the Open Meetings
> Act."
> 
> I should note, both of those links, the one from the previous email on
> the Open Meetings Act and [1] might just be for government/public
> organizations and not corporations.  I'm really not sure.  I was just
> doing my best to find something NM related XD
>>> Note, in the document from NM [2], I couldn't find specific reference to
>>> this (and we should speak to a lawyer), but there are some points where
>>> quorum is discussed of present members and some where it is discussed in
>>> relation to the entirety of the body.
>>>
>>> TL;DR: It might be possible to force all to vote, and but permit
>>> abstentions in the case of the trustees election.  This might allow an
>>> easier time aligning the bodies while not forcing developers to forcibly
>>> vote where they might not have an opinion.
>>>
>>> Please note, the above might be worth looking into regardless of whether
>>> we align the voting bodies as it might make achieving a quorum in future
>>> votes more attainable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regardless of quorum requirements, if we align the Foundation and Staff
>>> memberships, and make voting compulsory (within a 2 year period), it
>>> might be wise to loosen the voting periods to make it easier for members
>>> to vote, i.e. if voting is open for 2 weeks currently, make it open for
>>> 4 weeks as a month should be ample time to cast a vote, whether it be
>>> abstention (if allowed) or a filled ballot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Altering what constitutes a quorum can only be done by altering the
>> articles of incorporation (as far as I can tell).  We might be able to
>> extend the voting period though.
>>
> 
> 

As an addendum:  I think these two documents are what we'd want to look
at (For profit and ultimately non-profit corps)

http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art11.pdf
http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art8.pdf

I'll see what I can find in those later.


-- 
NP-Hardass


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]