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

[Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@gentoo.org>]

[-- 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 foundation members who are no longer active staff/devs, while keeping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 --]