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

[NP-Hardass]

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@×××××.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 foundation members who are no longer active staff/devs, while keeping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/