Talk:Bylaws

From Noisebridge
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Some things to consider when editing:)
Line 18: Line 18:
  
  
Points Andy made in email:
+
A really detailed set of Bylaws
- we started from Carol's bylaws, which were set up for a nonmembership
+
 
  corporation.  We've decided to go with a single class of members
+
  electing the board.
+
- we're ending up taking input from other bylaws found on the 'net,
+
  which have a wide variety of in-depthness.  Just for comparison,
+
  consider Article 6 sections 10-22 (!!) from
+
 
http://www.insightcced.org/uploads///publications/legal/mbylawsmember.pdf
 
http://www.insightcced.org/uploads///publications/legal/mbylawsmember.pdf
  versus Article IV of
+
 
 +
Much simpler:
 +
 
 
http://www.cirgis.org/docs/CIRGIS_Corporate_Bylaws.pdf
 
http://www.cirgis.org/docs/CIRGIS_Corporate_Bylaws.pdf
  -- they cover the same material, but one takes 8 pages and the other
 
  just one page.
 

Revision as of 21:32, 21 May 2008

Proposed Bylaws! Read this over; modify it according to your desires and judgement; fix typos, fill in blanks, and rephrase (with particular attention to the italicized bits).

Let's keep any actual discussion on the discussion page, since we've got one, instead of marking up the text of the proposed Bylaws with comments or questions.

One thing that should be discussed is the scope of the bylaws. There are good arguments to be made that they should be as small as possible, and limit us as little as possible, within what's legal. That's pretty much the direction we've taken in getting this far; if you have arguments for a more comprehensive set of bylaws let's hear them.

2008-05-20: We hacked them up a bit but became dispirited and halted in the middle. Please help! Save the kittens. Edit the bylaws. In particular the Membership bits are duplicated with varying degrees of specificity. I left a line in between the two sections we were attempting to combine.


Some things to consider when editing:

  • Name - Current discussion over email seems to be favor Noisebridge or Noise Bridge rather than Noisebridge Research, once it's decided, fix everywhere
  • Clarification of what members vote on vs. what powers reside solely with the board. We have some conflicting paragraphs
  • Clarification of how voting works. consensus, majority, somewhere in between, related issues
  • I think funny is ok, as long as we make sure it doesn't cause enforceability problems, i.e. throwing in a rule that prohibits feeding more than one officer to wild yetis on a full moon is fine, because this language would have no relevance to any situation that doesn't involve feeding plural officers to cryptids. On the other hand, a rule requiring human sacrifice to cthulhu in order to nominate a board member would be a problem, since it has bearing any time someone gets nominated.
  • sections need consistent numbering, internal references need to be fixed to point to the correct section numbers.
  • many areas can probably be simplified
  • the CIRGIS bylaws linked below look like a pretty good model to refer to.


A really detailed set of Bylaws

http://www.insightcced.org/uploads///publications/legal/mbylawsmember.pdf

Much simpler:

http://www.cirgis.org/docs/CIRGIS_Corporate_Bylaws.pdf

Personal tools