User Tools

Site Tools


December 13, 2015

Present: Andi, Dusana, Joshua, Carey, Corey, Lauren, Michelle (facilitating), Paul, Richard (minutes).

Meet and Greet

[no prospective members]

Review of Minutes


Wiki Updates


Agenda Item 1

(Carey) A. Address item 4 of my behavior contract: “No violent, retaliatory, or coercive actions for the duration of my current contract”. I request more specific and objective language as the item is vague and subjective.

B. I request this and any further re-drafts be done by the Steward or other uninvolved party.

QC from Corey: What is unclear about it?

Carey: It's very vague. Someone may say my making dinner they didn't enjoy was in retaliation, for example.

QC from Andi: Are you saying we can't amend the behavior contract?

Paul: No, we can pretty much do whatever we want.

QC from Andi: Carey, do you have a problem with any of the words besides “retaliatory?”

Carey: I've seen seen people describe all sorts of things as “violent” or “coercive,” such as the use of foul language.

QC from Paul: How can we be more clear? How should we reword this?

Carey: I don't know.

QC from Carey: You mentions things like raising your voice. I can see scenarios where that would not meet the definition, but others not so.

Concern from Richard: I think the barrier of a 50% vote to determine whether the contract was violated is sufficient to prevent a frivolous accusation from being accepted were it to come to a house meeting.

Concern from Paul: Some of these terms may be vague, but Carey can ask others what they think on the matter.

QC from Andi: Are we not able to change the contract here during this agenda item?

Richard: We've entertained and accepted requests from Tim to change terms in his contract.

Concern from Corey: I don't think we can outline every individual potential behavior.

Carey: I'm not asking for that.

[Carey leaves.]

Concern from Andi: If Carey thinks the contract is ambiguous, we can't just let it sit at that. We should do something. Maybe a one-on-one conversation with him would be more constructive.

Dusana: Do we want to give him the option of giving a written statement?

Andi: If he wants to, sure. I can volunteer to talk to him.

[Paul takes up item.]

FA from Paul: Suspend the contract for one week in order to redraft it.

QC from Richard: What happens if no satisfactory conclusion is reached?

Paul: The process continues as normal.

PoI from Andi: Carey has agreed to meet with some people to work on a redraft.

[FA accepted by consensus]

[Item accepted by consensus]

Agenda Item 2

(Richard) Reduce tech coordinator to one hour, treasurer to two hours.

Richard: Tech coordinator's responsibilities are sparse as of late and rarely add up to over an hour per week.

PoI from Paul: Ryan had more projects at the time we increased it to three hours, but this doesn't seem to be the case now.

PoI from Corey: A lot of the extra work was not a part of the treasurer's duties.

Concern from Paul: This isn't good for me personally.

Corey: Conflict of interest noted.

Dusana: Have we considered making tech coordinator zero hours with extra hours that can be reported?

Paul: It's often a lot of smaller things that add up to an hour per week over the course of a month.

[accepted by consensus]

Agenda Item 3

(Paul) Reduce weekly hours for some officer positions: reduce Safety Officer's hours to 0 (credit can be claimed for incidents and work done), reduce Tech Coordinator's hours to 1, reduce Treasurer's hours to 2. These can be treated as separate agenda items if necessary.

[Paul opts to table item.]

Agenda Item 3

(Gatlin) Amend Labor Czar responsibilities by removing responsibility of handling elections. As it stands currently the responsibility is shared between Labor Czar and Steward.

[Taken up by Richard]

QC from Corey: Would the labor czar still need to join the steward in counting ballots?

Richard: Yes.

[accepted by consensus]

Agenda Item 4

(Richard/Gatlin) Grant all members one “holiday” week from labor per year, during which labor responsibilities are waived. Members would have to notify the Labor Czar at least 3 weeks in advance.

QC from Paul: Does the labor just not get done? Does the labor czar give notice? What is the process? Richard: The week's notice the czar should be sufficient to cover those gaps or notify the house that there are makeup labor opportunities for a given week.

Andi: Could this be used to make up hours already missed? E.g., to take a “holiday” but then do the labor anyway.

Richard: I hadn't conceived of it being used that way and might discourage such usage.

FA from Richard: Make “one holiday week” to be six labor hours per year.

QC from Corey: Do those hours need to be used consecutively?

Richard: No. Any or all the the hours can be used over the course of a year.

Joshua: Could that be a part of the amendment?

[Richard frowns]

Concern from Paul: I'm worried this could be abused and wonder if we have the labor hours for this.

Corey: I think most people who shirk their labor don't usually plan a week ahead of time. It's also only six hours per year.

FA to FA from Corey: Have it explicitly stated that the hours needn't be used all at once. Richard: It's the intent behind it, and I would hope future labor czars would construe it the same way.

[FA to FA accepted]

[FA accepted]

Concern from Paul: I'm concerned future labor czars will not be able to maintain it.

Richard: I have another six months to have this automatically managed.

FA from Paul: The member must notify the house at least three in advance, either to the email list or the Commons cork board.

Concern from Paul: I'm concern this may be construed to mean it's no longer the labor czar's responsibility

FA from Richard: Reduce requirement from three weeks to one week.

[FA accepted]

Concern from Paul: Am I overthinking this?

House in unison: Yes.

[accepted by consensus]

Agenda Item 5

(Corey) Drop Yellow Cards fine.

Corey: Yellow card fines are stupid, no one remembers they exist, and I've never assessed a fine because no one has notified me one. I think yellow card carry a lot of weight already: It can lead to membership reviews. It shouldn't also carry a financial penalty.

[accepted by consensus]

New business

Richard: Coordinator nominations are concluding today. There are some positions with no nominees; everybody panic!

Joshua: I would like to start a consensus process study group.

Corey: What is up with maintenance? Maintenance has seemed to disappear.

Andi: Folks were saying last week that safety officer is not very well defined, but looking at the wiki I see no description at all.

meetings/2015-12-13.txt · Last modified: 2017/06/28 18:06 (external edit)