Re: Bylwas Revision: COMMITTEES

This is the beginning of the discussion for the committee article of the
bylaws. Here are some basic principles which I feel should apply to the
committees.

- they should take care of most of the day to day operation of SPI
[this takes the workload off the BOD]
- their rights and responsibilities should be completely described in
their charter
- they should be governed by the board of directors
[what does this really mean? I'm not sure yet... but that's who they
should 'report' to]
- the BOD should be able to issue charters (i.e. create committees)
[I'm thinking that if the consensus is that a new committee is needed,
the BOD can issue a charter. The membership should definitely have some
input here though. how? By helping write the charter.]

QUESTIONS:
----------
- how are leaders appointed? I'd say by the BOD, possibly the membership.
- how are members appointed? BOD? Leader? Membership?
- should non-contributing members be able to serve on committees?
[incidentally, that would automatically make them contributing
members...!!]
- what do we do if a committee is no longer necessary? disband it. How?
BOD vote?

I'm sure there are other issues here that I'm not addressing... please
bring them up if you think of them! As I think you can see, this
discussion is one step closer to the voting discussion, as this will bring
up a lot of issues regarding who controls what and why. I think that when
we're done with this discussion, the voting discussion will be a lot
easier because the political infrastructure will be in place.

Enjoy...
Nils.

--
Nils Lohner Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
E-Mail: lohner(at)spi-inc(dot)org PO Box 1326
Board Of Directors <board(at)spi-inc(dot)org> Boston, Ma. 02117 USA

I would rather favor having individuals making those decisions. Committees
are useful if you want to slow down any possible dangerous decisions or
if power needs to be controller but Committees are not useful for day to
day operations. I would like this to be as non-political as possible. So
far we have had a pretty informal structure and it worked mostly.

Could we make all of this as simple as possible? This looks more and more
to me as if we are building a big administrative apparatus.

I would like to see a list of jobs for individuals within SPI and then a
responsibility to the BOD.

On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Nils Lohner wrote:

>
>
> This is the beginning of the discussion for the committee article of the
> bylaws. Here are some basic principles which I feel should apply to the
> committees.
>
> - they should take care of most of the day to day operation of SPI
> [this takes the workload off the BOD]
> - their rights and responsibilities should be completely described in
> their charter
> - they should be governed by the board of directors
> [what does this really mean? I'm not sure yet... but that's who they
> should 'report' to]
> - the BOD should be able to issue charters (i.e. create committees)
> [I'm thinking that if the consensus is that a new committee is needed,
> the BOD can issue a charter. The membership should definitely have some
> input here though. how? By helping write the charter.]
>
>
> QUESTIONS:
> ----------
> - how are leaders appointed? I'd say by the BOD, possibly the membership.
> - how are members appointed? BOD? Leader? Membership?
> - should non-contributing members be able to serve on committees?
> [incidentally, that would automatically make them contributing
> members...!!]
> - what do we do if a committee is no longer necessary? disband it. How?
> BOD vote?
>
>
> I'm sure there are other issues here that I'm not addressing... please
> bring them up if you think of them! As I think you can see, this
> discussion is one step closer to the voting discussion, as this will bring
> up a lot of issues regarding who controls what and why. I think that when
> we're done with this discussion, the voting discussion will be a lot
> easier because the political infrastructure will be in place.
>
> Enjoy...
> Nils.
>
>
> --
> Nils Lohner Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
> E-Mail: lohner(at)spi-inc(dot)org PO Box 1326
> Board Of Directors <board(at)spi-inc(dot)org> Boston, Ma. 02117 USA
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to spi-general-request(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
>
>
>

On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> Previously Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > I would rather favor having individuals making those decisions.
>
> I would rather not have individuals making important decisions.

I never suggested such an idea.

> > Committees are useful if you want to slow down any possible dangerous
> > decisions or if power needs to be controller but Committees are not
> > useful for day to day operations.
>
> That depends on their size and internal organization. For example
> the ftpmaster team for Debian basically is a committee and they appear
> to do very useful day to day operations ..

Umm. They dont work as a committee. And even their disagreements spoil
over to debian-private. Anyways maybe we can frame it in the form of a
committee with a chairman able to do and delegate things. I talked with
Nils on irc about that. I just dont want the common committee nature which
I have seen. It will make swift action impossible. Such a committee for
daily operations is deadly for an organization.

> > I would like this to be as non-political as possible. So far we have
> > had a pretty informal structure and it worked mostly.
>
> We are going to need the politics at a certain point anyway; see what
> happened to Debian. Without the constitution which has the same amount
> of politics things would get (be?) messy.

This is a double edged sword. Too much regulation can cause a mess as
well.

On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > - they should take care of most of the day to day operation of SPI
> > [this takes the workload off the BOD]
>
> Basically they're delegates of the BOD, right?
No, they *could* be delegates of the membership.

> > - the BOD should be able to issue charters (i.e. create committees)
> > [I'm thinking that if the consensus is that a new committee is needed,
> > the BOD can issue a charter. The membership should definitely have some
> > input here though. how? By helping write the charter.]
>
> Help writing the chapter and of course being able to revoke the creation
> of a new committee via a vote.
In fact, any decision of the BOD or any committee should be overridable by
a vote of the membership.. but the process should be made troublesome
enough that every person with a hair on their pimple can't contest
everything.

> > QUESTIONS:
> > ----------
> > - how are leaders appointed? I'd say by the BOD, possibly the membership.
>
> Have people from the membership volunteer and let the BOD make the final
> choice I think.
>
> > - how are members appointed? BOD? Leader? Membership?
>
> Another quite common option is to select a leader and let him choose the
> rest of the committee if you're forming a new committee. If a current
> leader is replace a new leader is chosen by the BOD and the current
> committee, with advise from the leaving leader.
Another possibility is to let the people volunteer for the committee and
let the committee choose the head....
>
> > - what do we do if a committee is no longer necessary? disband it. How?
> > BOD vote?
>
> I think a committee should have to disband itself.
No, it should be able to be disbanded by the BOD, also. They're the ones
who created it... even if it was at the direction of the membership.

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
=========================================================================

Previously Nils Lohner wrote:
> - they should take care of most of the day to day operation of SPI
> [this takes the workload off the BOD]

Basically they're delegates of the BOD, right?

> - their rights and responsibilities should be completely described in
> their charter

True. We should do that for Debian as well, but I'm not in a hurry
there since Debian already works fine.

> - the BOD should be able to issue charters (i.e. create committees)
> [I'm thinking that if the consensus is that a new committee is needed,
> the BOD can issue a charter. The membership should definitely have some
> input here though. how? By helping write the charter.]

Help writing the chapter and of course being able to revoke the creation
of a new committee via a vote.

> QUESTIONS:
> ----------
> - how are leaders appointed? I'd say by the BOD, possibly the membership.

Have people from the membership volunteer and let the BOD make the final
choice I think.

> - how are members appointed? BOD? Leader? Membership?

Another quite common option is to select a leader and let him choose the
rest of the committee if you're forming a new committee. If a current
leader is replace a new leader is chosen by the BOD and the current
committee, with advise from the leaving leader.

> - what do we do if a committee is no longer necessary? disband it. How?
> BOD vote?

I think a committee should have to disband itself.

Wichert.

--
==============================================================================
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: wakkerma(at)cs(dot)leidenuniv(dot)nl
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/

Previously Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I would rather favor having individuals making those decisions.

I would rather not have individuals making important decisions.

> Committees are useful if you want to slow down any possible dangerous
> decisions or if power needs to be controller but Committees are not
> useful for day to day operations.

That depends on their size and internal organization. For example
the ftpmaster team for Debian basically is a committee and they appear
to do very useful day to day operations ..

> I would like this to be as non-political as possible. So far we have
> had a pretty informal structure and it worked mostly.

We are going to need the politics at a certain point anyway; see what
happened to Debian. Without the constitution which has the same amount
of politics things would get (be?) messy.

Wichert.

--
==============================================================================
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: wakkerma(at)cs(dot)leidenuniv(dot)nl
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/

On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 08:25:49AM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I would rather favor having individuals making those decisions. Committees
> are useful if you want to slow down any possible dangerous decisions or
> if power needs to be controller but Committees are not useful for day to
> day operations. I would like this to be as non-political as possible. So
> far we have had a pretty informal structure and it worked mostly.
pretty informal works for an informal group like a Free Software project.
However, SPI is a legal entity and needs more structure, if for no other
reason, to protect itself.

It doesn't have to be overly complicated, either, just "clear" (quotes
because clear means in the eyes of various regulatory bodies). Still,
some formality is necessary or clarity.

> Could we make all of this as simple as possible? This looks more and more
> to me as if we are building a big administrative apparatus.
There's noting "administrative" in what's been done yet... 'cept somehow a
membership roll (well, two) has to be kept... Committees. Having
committees doesn't make it administrative. It might slow things down.. and
it might be necessary to build a safeguard against that (teams, instead of
committees where speed is important).. but it is a necessity to define
what's going to take place...

>
> I would like to see a list of jobs for individuals within SPI and then a
> responsibility to the BOD.
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Nils Lohner wrote:

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
=========================================================================

On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:

> > This is a double edged sword. Too much regulation can cause a mess as
> > well.
>
> Having them and having to use them all the time are different things.
> Or do you think that the constitution is hindering or regulating
> too much in Debian?

We are talking about bylaws. Bylaws can be decided upon by the
governing body. This is not the constitution.

On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Darren Benham wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > - they should take care of most of the day to day operation of SPI
> > > [this takes the workload off the BOD]
> >
> > Basically they're delegates of the BOD, right?
> No, they *could* be delegates of the membership.

How would the membership delegate those things? Election?

> In fact, any decision of the BOD or any committee should be overridable by
> a vote of the membership.. but the process should be made troublesome
> enough that every person with a hair on their pimple can't contest
> everything.

How about a petition scheme. If a petition is pgp signed by 10% of the
membership then a vote will be taken which can override any decision of
leadership?

> > Another quite common option is to select a leader and let him choose the
> > rest of the committee if you're forming a new committee. If a current
> > leader is replace a new leader is chosen by the BOD and the current
> > committee, with advise from the leaving leader.
> Another possibility is to let the people volunteer for the committee and
> let the committee choose the head....

That depends on the situation I would think but we need to have some kind
of governing structure that approves these things. Hopefully simple.

> > I think a committee should have to disband itself.
> No, it should be able to be disbanded by the BOD, also. They're the ones
> who created it... even if it was at the direction of the membership.

It would be dangerous if the technical oversight committee disbanded
itself. Depends on the committee. Keep it flexible.

On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 03:59:24PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> How would the membership delegate those things? Election?
Err... I was just presenting contrasts...

> > In fact, any decision of the BOD or any committee should be overridable by
> > a vote of the membership.. but the process should be made troublesome
> > enough that every person with a hair on their pimple can't contest
> > everything.
>
> How about a petition scheme. If a petition is pgp signed by 10% of the
> membership then a vote will be taken which can override any decision of
> leadership?
I'd prefer a seconds approach, personally. Maybe 10% of the body "seconds"
it... but 10% of the people have to sign? 100+ signatures on one document?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...

> > Another possibility is to let the people volunteer for the committee and
> > let the committee choose the head....
>
> That depends on the situation I would think but we need to have some kind
> of governing structure that approves these things. Hopefully simple.
The BOD accepts and appoints the committee members... no approval necessary
for them choosing their own leader.

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
=========================================================================

On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Darren Benham wrote:

> > How about a petition scheme. If a petition is pgp signed by 10% of the
> > membership then a vote will be taken which can override any decision of
> > leadership?
> I'd prefer a seconds approach, personally. Maybe 10% of the body "seconds"
> it... but 10% of the people have to sign? 100+ signatures on one document?
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you...

yes. 100+ signatures on one document in order to get a vote by all
members on an issue. Basically to reverse a decision of the leadership in
sticky situations. maybe we can make it less than 10%?

Previously Christoph Lameter wrote:
> I just dont want the common committee nature which I have seen. It
> will make swift action impossible. Such a committee for daily
> operations is deadly for an organization.

I see a committee as a group of people with a certain task and a single
leader. How they organize themselves is entirely up to the committee
itself. Different committees will probably warrant different structures.

> This is a double edged sword. Too much regulation can cause a mess as
> well.

Having them and having to use them all the time are different things.
Or do you think that the constitution is hindering or regulating
too much in Debian?

Wichert.

--
==============================================================================
This combination of bytes forms a message written to you by Wichert Akkerman.
E-Mail: wakkerma(at)cs(dot)leidenuniv(dot)nl
WWW: http://www.wi.leidenuniv.nl/~wichert/