User Tools

Site Tools


meetings:2017-07-23

July 23, 2017

Present: Richard, Victor, Paul (minutes).

Meet and Greet

Sylvester. No pets and pet allergies. Accepted for membership.

Review of Minutes

Minutes (7/9) accepted. 7/16 minutes missing.

Wiki Updates

None.

Click to open form

Click to hide form (useful for printing)

Note: $ must be escaped by preceding with a \. Example: \$100

K N C Q​ G

Agenda Item 1

(Paul) Specify in our rules that smoking is not acceptable anywhere in the commons or in people's units.

CQ: Are there legal implications?

POI: I've been told we can't get money from the city if this isn't in our contract.

Accepted for discussion.

Friendly amendment: Put it in the contract. Accepted.

CQ: Is this all smoked substances?

POI: Sure, why not.

Accepted as amended.

Agenda Item 2

(Paul) Goal: Update the “consensus check” ground rules that we don't follow.

Rationale: Stripped to less legalistic language, our current consensus process states that for a consensus check:
* If there are two blocks, the proposal is tabled.
* Otherwise, if at least 2/3rds of the members /present/ (note it's not “members voting”) show their approval, the proposal continues.
* Otherwise, if at least 1/4th of the members present show their disapproval, the proposal is tabled.
* Otherwise, if at least half of the members present show their approval, the proposal continues.

To my knowledge, we have never fully applied these rules. I think they're overly complicated for not much gain. I know that multiple people, including me, have been tripped up or confused by them.

Proposal: Implement one of the following instead of the current rules:
Voting option) If there are two blocks, or if 2/3rds of the members /voting/ do not show their approval, the proposal is tabled.
-or-
Consensus option) If there are two blocks, the proposal is tabled.

The voting option is closer to our de facto rules, and something like the first half of the consensus check definition. The consensus option is closer to full consensus with two blocks. After/if we accept one of the proposals for discussion - presumably in a straw poll - I'll happily take amendments to it.

Either way, it should be straightforward to update our consensus document with our decision. If people desire it, the final language can be subject to ratification as well.

This would have no effect on our voting rules in other areas, such as member reviews. Any rule change wouldn't take effect until the next meeting.

Tabled for lack of participants.

New business

Labor Czar: I wanted to shout out all the people that helped make labor holiday happen! I think it was a good one.

meetings/2017-07-23.txt · Last modified: 2017/07/30 23:28 by paulwuersig