- 1 Roll Call
- 2 Persons Elected
- 3 Review and Approval of Last Meetings Minutes
- 4 Agenda Discussion
- 5 Bylaws
- 6 Ending Meeting and Final Notes
22 people listed themselves on the roll call, shown below. These are the people who actively participated in the meeting, either by voting or otherwise.
- @PaulFerence@awoo.space (7 PM - 9 PM UTC)
- @firstname.lastname@example.org (previously email@example.com)
- @firstname.lastname@example.org (7pm - 8:45pm UTC)
- @email@example.com (left 9:17pm UTC)
- @firstname.lastname@example.org (also @email@example.com, @firstname.lastname@example.org, @email@example.com)
- @firstname.lastname@example.org (21:50 - end)
- @email@example.com (21:54 - end)
The meeting was opened by PaulFerence, who asked for nominations for chairperson.
The chairperson runs the meeting and reads the meeting script as the meeting progresses.
- Hoodie@dev.glitch.social was accepted as chairperson
- No one else volunteered.
The secretary is in charge of writing the meeting notes.
- Satsuma was accepted as secretary.
- No one else volunteered.
The minutes adjusters are in charge of double-checking the minutes before they are shared with a larger audience. There must be at least two minutes adjusters, but three is preferred.
- Clar was accepted as a minutes adjuster.
- bstacey was accepted as a minutes adjuster.
- PaulFerence was accepted as a minutes adjuster.
- No one else volunteered.
Review and Approval of Last Meetings Minutes
- The minutes for last meeting were taken by Clar and adjusted by Codl and Satsuma
- Codl and Satsuma both approved the minutes before the meeting
- The minutes were presented and time was allowed for review, no changes were made before they were approved by the members present at the meeting
The full agenda for the meeting can be found at Agendas/2018-06-30. The meeting was open to questions about and additions to the agenda. There were no questions or additions to the agenda.
The bylaws are available for viewing on the wiki. The meeting is opened for comments on the bylaws.
Initial Comments on the Bylaws
- firstname.lastname@example.org requested clarification as to the current state of the bylaws. Clar clarified that they were not finished and that there would be a vote on the final draft. email@example.com requested the agenda be edited to reflect this
- Hoodie added a note from the first meeting's agenda as clarification which read: "Approval of Bylaws: Acknowledging that the bylaws are/may be almost entirely adjusted for the next meeting depending on what type of organization this meeting chooses."
- Hoodie also noted that while they were chairperson, they did not personally understand the legal aspects of drafting and approving the bylaws
Discussion of Resolving Issue of Unfinished Bylaws
[note: this needs a better title asap]
- Satsuma noted that the bylaws were in roughly the same state as they were last week, when the members present declared the bylaws unsuitable and voted to allow a week for additional edits, as very few people had actually edited them
- Satsuma suggested that this could be resolved by voting to postpone the rest of the agenda and working on the bylaws for the rest of the meeting and then solicited other suggestions for the best way to resolve the situation
- firstname.lastname@example.org proposed resolving the issue by voting to approve the following remark: "We have reviewed the bylaws and we have found them incomplete and still containing not integrated remarks. We refer further work on bylaws to the community. X volunteers to prepare a version of bylaws for the next meeting plus prepare a set of proposals to vote on."
- PaulFerence suggested striking items 8: Review and adjust Bylaws and 9: Approval of Bylaws from the agenda and adding a point 14.6.7 to vote on adding a workgroup for the bylaws
- @email@example.com noted that many of the people in the meeting came from a primarily technical/operational background and therefore had very little experience writing or approving bylaws, and suggested that we identify what the actual problem with not having finalized bylaws is so that work can progress on other issues in the interim
- bstacey seconded the proposal of a Bylaw Workgroup
Fifteen Minute Break
At this point a fifteen minute break was taken, as per last meeting's vote to take a break every hour. The break took place from 8:04-8:20 UTC.
Resumed Discussion of Bylaw Workgroup
- firstname.lastname@example.org seconded the proposal of a workgroup and volunteered to be part of it, she also suggested having a dedicated meeting to scope out the legal requirements of the bylaws, as they may affect which country the organization wanted to organize in and therefore which laws the organization would be governed by
- email@example.com noted that we agreed in the last meeting that we had to have bylaws to proceed and cited Minutes/2018-06-30#Tabling_of_Discussion
- Hoodie proposed three voting options in the meeting channel, attempting to take into account all of the proposals that had been made before the break. Those proposals were
A) to institute a small set of volunteers, as a 'workgroup' to present an address on how to resolve the bylaws legally, for the next meeting. we already have one volunteer, who will most likely nominate themselves, should this vote pass in this manner.
B) we set up a workgroup, open to all, with one person heading it, possibly the nominee already offering to help, in option A.
C) one person takes control of this job (the nominee, possibly) and is responsible solely for presenting an accessible presentation at the next meeting, explaining why we have chosen what we have. i personally volunteer myself as an editor for the purposes of accessibility, since i already write articles meant to be accessible to all, on social media tech, and have been training myself for this purpose.
The following discussion ensued:
- firstname.lastname@example.org noted that last meeting Laurelai had raised a concern about the bylaws possibly being created by the board, or a committee chosen by the board because she considered this a bad power structure which allows the board to chose all the rules. She stated that this is anti-democratic and urged everyone to vote against the creation of a committee and have the general assembly handle bylaws (note: last meetings proposal was for an open workgroup to handle bylaws and there was at that time no board). Saper noted that this had not been voted on, and was therefore not a formal decision of the assembly, but that we should make an effort to respect it anyway.
- Satsuma clarified that there is no board and that the committee in Hoodie's proposal A) would be made up of volunteers elected at this meeting and none of the members could be nominated or elected by the board, as the board did not exist. They also noted that any bylaws written by the volunteers elected at this meeting would still have to be reviewed and voted on by the general membership [wc?] of the organization and that there were no protocols in place to override the general memberships vote
- Satsuma further stated that as they had used an open workgroup model for working on the bylaws last week, and nothing had got done, they were in favor of electing specific volunteers in the hopes of seeing a greater amount of progress
- Hoodie apologized for any ambiguity in feir proposals, as fey had very little time to write it. Fey also volunteered to edit the draft of the bylaws for accessibility regardless of which proposal passed. Fey urged everyone to consider the need to delegate, as the discussion of bylaws had thus far prevented any progress from being made in two successive meetings and stated: "i'm doing my best, and i think we all are, but we need to proceed, or we will simply loop every meeting with this same format and problem. slightly faster elections, maybe, but we will struggle for months to get anything done. i'm not here for that."
- email@example.com noted that the votes for proposals A) and B) were close in votes and both had merits, and suggested we proceed with a hybrid of the two where a group of self-nominated volunteers did the bulk of the work with an additional open invitation & mandate for recruitment of additional group members. This suggestion was not responded to
- bstacey responded to Satsuma's concern that an open workgroup would lead to no work getting done by saying he had had the same concern, but about the closed workgroup, since the phrasing of option A) left it less clear whether a specific person would bear responsibility for keeping the group progressing, rather than having everyone expecting everyone else to be doing the work.
- firstname.lastname@example.org seconded bstacey's response to Satsuma and further suggested that the body delegate the job of editing the bylaws to Hoodie, as fae had volunteered with anyone else who wanted to being allowed to help as well. email@example.com also seconded Hoodie's request to move on stating: "I came here to talk more about what is to be done, why and how and we seem to be stuck in some formalities, I barely understand the need for them at this stage."
- @firstname.lastname@example.org noted that option B), an open workgroup was more in line with the goals of the organization than option A). He also stated that, regardless of if the bylaws were completed he would like to move on with other projects, such as picking a name and tagline for the project so that the infrastructure team could begin purchasing domain names and setting up services
- Hoodie was nominated and accepted
- email@example.com was nominated and accepted
- Satsuma was nominated and accepted
- Laurelai@mastodon.starrevolution was nominated and accepted for the bylaws
Discussion of Power of the Board
- firstname.lastname@example.org also nominated themselves for the interim committee, which did not yet exist
- @Laurelai@mastodon.starrevolution objected on the grounds that the board should not be allowed to choose the rules they were bound by
- Satsuma clarified that the organization was not currently taking nominations for the board, interim committee, or any other long term position. They also clarified that regardless of whether the rules were written in an open workgroup or a closed one, the work would be done primarily by those willing to put the time in & that allowing people to nominate themselves for the group effectively only meant that the organization would know who was planning to work on the bylaws in advance
- email@example.com acknowledged Laurelai@mastodon.starrevolution's concerns and noted that for Australians this meeting was taking place at five AM on Monday instead of Sunday afternoon and requested that future meetings take place on Saturdays instead
- Hoodie suggested that as very little had gotten done, we just use the same agenda for next meeting
- firstname.lastname@example.org suggested that to clear up the matter, everyone should vote on whether folks who are in the bylaws group can have an [interim] committee position later and a vote was taken with the members of the bylaw workgroup abstaining from the vote. The members present voted not to allow members of the bylaw workgroup from being allowed to hold a position on the interim committee
Ending Meeting and Final Notes
- email@example.com stated that they found it frustrating to wake up at five am two spend two hours of discussion that could effectively be boiled down to "the bylaws still need work" and proposed that we change meeting formats
- firstname.lastname@example.org apologized for the lack of progress, noted that in the first meeting we hadn't even had a bot to speed things up, and thanked everyone for their patience before closing the meeting
The meeting officially ended at 9:29 PM UTC. A poll will be sent out via @email@example.com to establish when the best time is for the next meeting