User Tools

Site Tools


meetings:2012-11-09

November 9, 2012

1. Proposal to use a lax version of Robert's Rules to run meetings. Specifics are even *further* below. Almost what we do at Sasona.

Motion

Motion (Gatlin/Donny) to adopt the rules at the bottom of this email as the standing rules, except using hand motions of “C,” “I,” and a triangle point in lieu of “point of clarification,” “point of inquiry,” and “parliamentary concern.”

Everyone agreed!

2. Proposal to make meeting quorum 1/3 of the voting membership + 1.

Motion 1

Motion (Gatlin/Donny) to pass this proposal. Donny notes that with this strategy we want to make sure we make sure to accept people who will really make a commitment. Ruth agrees that there should be some commitment to the community.

Donny floats the idea of attendance requirements to stay on the committee. Ruth points out some people aren't meeting people. After discussion, we altered the motion:

Motion 2

Motion (Gatlin/Trip) to require 3 members present to have a meeting, two of whom are CHEA Board members.

Everyone is “cool with that.”

3. Proposal to require a supermajority for all decisions except new members; new member votes require a simple majority.

Gatlin reasons that consensus is difficult. Trip says consensus is admirable but getting a consensus meeting to work is probably harder than starting a new house; the former should perhaps not be used to foster the latter.

Trip proposes a statement of intent at the beginning of each meeting. Donny and Gatlin support this idea. Trip also suggests requiring a NASCO membership. Ruth clarifies NASCO is not NASCO Properties, much to the confusion of the NASCO members in the room.

Gatlin points out that maybe the larger group should discuss this, but that it - or a similar minor sacrifice - is a good idea. Ruth contends that money might be scarce but there are other ways to let a member prove their commitment. Group agreement to table this thought until a meeting with more people.

Trip stresses the importance of finding the potential membership issues early on. We should think of a way to make sure the people who benefit are the people who are making decisions.

Gatlin jerks us back to the discussion. Let supermajority mean “for every opponent of a motion, there are two proponents (who are not abstaining),”

Motion

Motion (Gatlin/Donny) to pass item 3, with the intention that we will scrutinize membership policies again soon.

Passes by consensus.

4. Proposal to elect a meeting chair at the next meeting. Term to be either 3 months pending a more palatable idea. Responsibility: enforce Robert's Rules, appoint a minutes taker, make sure the minutes are made publicly available to all committee members, and manage a stack if necessary.

Trip wants to balance between terms so long that nobody ever gets a chance, and so short that they will become annoying. Additionally, he suggests that the chair lead a group approval of the prior meeting's minutes as an understood first agenda item at each meeting. This is a good way to ensure that the minutes are taken, properly archived, and correct.

Motion

Motion (Gatlin/Donny) to elect a meeting chair at the next meeting. Term is 12 weeks. Responsibility: to facilitate discussions by enforcing standing rules, appoint a minutes taker at each meeting, make sure the minutes are made publicly available to all committee members, lead a group approval of the prior meeting's minutes as an understood first agenda item at each meeting, and manage a stack if necessary; there is an understanding that this is a bootstrapping measure in need of review.

Everyone is cool again!

Ruth requests to be accepted as a member. The committee accepts unanimously.

Chris requests to be accepted as a member. The committee accepts unanimously.

The committee adjourns.

meetings/2012-11-09.txt · Last modified: 2017/06/28 18:06 (external edit)