1 |
On 10/14/2016 10:43 AM, NP-Hardass wrote: |
2 |
> On 10/14/2016 11:15 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
3 |
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>>> This is why I oppose mooshing the roles together. |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>> An ebuild maintaining nerd/codemonkey type may have little interest in |
7 |
>>> foundation politics, and vice versa. We should not force them to shoulder |
8 |
>>> roles they don't want. |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> As long as they're willing to play nice with the community, they should be |
11 |
>>> allowed to offer their support in any way they see fit. I don't think |
12 |
>>> putting vote quotas on anyone is going to help. |
13 |
>>> |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> It is a valid argument, but it does then lead to the situation where |
16 |
>> we have diverging foundation and dev membership, which means that if |
17 |
>> you post the same question to both groups, you could get different |
18 |
>> answers, and thus conflict. |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> However, this could be mitigated a great deal if we still purged |
21 |
>> foundation members who are no longer active staff/devs, while keeping |
22 |
>> foundation membership optional for those who are, and if somebody |
23 |
>> loses foundation membership due to not voting they could ask to be |
24 |
>> allowed back in. Then while somebody might not be voting for who the |
25 |
>> Trustees are, they can't really complain because they need only ask |
26 |
>> for the ability to vote for them, and crisis could be averted. |
27 |
>> |
28 |
> |
29 |
> What exactly are the requirements for quorum as necessitated by NM law? |
30 |
> How do explicit abstains from a vote affect that if they do? If |
31 |
> explicit abstention is allowed, then make voting completely compulsory, |
32 |
> and those that do not feel that they have a desire to put a filled |
33 |
> ballot forward are required to submit a ballot of abstention. This |
34 |
> might alleviate some of the concerns of developers being forced to vote |
35 |
> for trustees, while still putting developers in a position where they |
36 |
> have to weigh what degree they wish to weigh in on such a matter. |
37 |
> IANAL, but my suspicion is that the law only mandates that a quorum be |
38 |
> present, not that a quorum vote one way or another. According to this |
39 |
> document [1], abstentions only affect votes where the |
40 |
> quorum/majority/unanimity is required of *present* voters, thus votes |
41 |
> where only quorum/majority/unanimity of total votes is required, |
42 |
> abstention is removed entirely from the assessment of quorum for the |
43 |
> decision itself. |
44 |
> |
45 |
I think I found it. |
46 |
|
47 |
http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art11.pdf |
48 |
page 93 - 53-11-32 |
49 |
|
50 |
I wasn't able to find any info on abstaining. As far as I could tell a |
51 |
'rolling quorum' (just those present) can't make decisions. |
52 |
|
53 |
http://www.nmag.gov/uploads/files/Publications/ComplianceGuides/Open%20Meetings%20Act%20Compliance%20Guide%202015.pdf |
54 |
|
55 |
> Note, in the document from NM [2], I couldn't find specific reference to |
56 |
> this (and we should speak to a lawyer), but there are some points where |
57 |
> quorum is discussed of present members and some where it is discussed in |
58 |
> relation to the entirety of the body. |
59 |
> |
60 |
> TL;DR: It might be possible to force all to vote, and but permit |
61 |
> abstentions in the case of the trustees election. This might allow an |
62 |
> easier time aligning the bodies while not forcing developers to forcibly |
63 |
> vote where they might not have an opinion. |
64 |
> |
65 |
> Please note, the above might be worth looking into regardless of whether |
66 |
> we align the voting bodies as it might make achieving a quorum in future |
67 |
> votes more attainable. |
68 |
> |
69 |
> |
70 |
> |
71 |
> Regardless of quorum requirements, if we align the Foundation and Staff |
72 |
> memberships, and make voting compulsory (within a 2 year period), it |
73 |
> might be wise to loosen the voting periods to make it easier for members |
74 |
> to vote, i.e. if voting is open for 2 weeks currently, make it open for |
75 |
> 4 weeks as a month should be ample time to cast a vote, whether it be |
76 |
> abstention (if allowed) or a filled ballot. |
77 |
> |
78 |
> |
79 |
> |
80 |
Altering what constitutes a quorum can only be done by altering the |
81 |
articles of incorporation (as far as I can tell). We might be able to |
82 |
extend the voting period though. |
83 |
|
84 |
-- |
85 |
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |