[steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws

David,

I'd like to answer Florian's mail in details -or think about it further- but
I do like your suggestions below (all of them). Mind adding them yourself?
My bandwidth is... low today and I'm with my family.

Thanks,

Charles.

Hi,

I'd like to answer Florian's mail in details -or think about it further- but
I do like your suggestions below (all of them). Mind adding them yourself?
My bandwidth is... low today and I'm with my family.

I just had a chat with Charles and we discussed about that.

My take is that we put ourselves (TDF people, hired or volunteer) into a worse situation than our contributors. If Director of Development at XYZ Corporation wants to join the BoD, he can, and he is paid for his regular duties. If a Director of Development at TDF wants to join the BoD, he cannot. Why do we put ourselves into that situation?

I'm fine if our BoD has more corporate representatives than TDF ones, but I want to avoid that we just cannot have TDF people in there, because of our own rules. This means that we exclude people from joining the bodies and shaping TDF, just because they are with TDF. With the current bylaws, even someone working with TDF purely volunteer and having an unpaid officer role cannot be a part of the BoD, so it's not even about money - it's about fairness about who is "eligible" to run for a vote in the board.

Hope that makes it a bit more clear. :slight_smile:

Charles will clarify in the bylaws that officers - except for chairman, executive director, legal and financial officers - can be part of any committee. The four mentioned officers cannot be part of BoD or AB.

Hope that makes thins a bit more clear.

Florian

Hello Florian, all,

Hi,

I'd like to answer Florian's mail in details -or think about it further-

but
I do like your suggestions below (all of them). Mind adding them yourself?
My bandwidth is... low today and I'm with my family.

I just had a chat with Charles and we discussed about that.

My take is that we put ourselves (TDF people, hired or volunteer) into a
worse situation than our contributors. If Director of Development at XYZ
Corporation wants to join the BoD, he can, and he is paid for his regular
duties. If a Director of Development at TDF wants to join the BoD, he
cannot. Why do we put ourselves into that situation?

I'm fine if our BoD has more corporate representatives than TDF ones, but I
want to avoid that we just cannot have TDF people in there, because of our
own rules. This means that we exclude people from joining the bodies and
shaping TDF, just because they are with TDF. With the current bylaws, even
someone working with TDF purely volunteer and having an unpaid officer role
cannot be a part of the BoD, so it's not even about money - it's about
fairness about who is "eligible" to run for a vote in the board.

Hope that makes it a bit more clear. :slight_smile:

Charles will clarify in the bylaws that officers - except for chairman,
executive director, legal and financial officers - can be part of any
committee. The four mentioned officers cannot be part of BoD or AB.

Hope that makes thins a bit more clear.

Yes indeed. So I made two small modifications, one in the officers '
definition and one in the business and transparency subsection.
The CH, ED and the legal and financial officers, as well as any other
potential officers can join any committee and team they want. Except for the
BoD and the AB that the four officers cannot get elected to, and thus cannot
join.

Another modification I made: the solemn address start of process (when
people look for 30% of active members to undersign the address) cannot last
more than one month (otherwise we would have lingering campaigns anti BoD...

best,

Charles.

Hi, :slight_smile:

David,

I'd like to answer Florian's mail in details -or think about it further- but
I do like your suggestions below (all of them). Mind adding them yourself?
My bandwidth is... low today and I'm with my family.

Thanks,

Charles.

Oh, sure, great, will do that now. Thanks for your trust in this. :slight_smile:

David Nelson

Hi,

Hi, :slight_smile:

> David,
>
> I'd like to answer Florian's mail in details -or think about it
> further- but I do like your suggestions below (all of them). Mind
> adding them yourself? My bandwidth is... low today and I'm with my
> family.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charles.

Oh, sure, great, will do that now. Thanks for your trust in this. :slight_smile:

David Nelson

I would like -if David is done with the additions- to call for a last
review of the text. Tomorrow morning, we will declare the bylaws
adopted if nothing major is objected.

Thank you everyone,

Hi, :slight_smile:

I would like -if David is done with the additions- to call for a last
review of the text. Tomorrow morning, we will declare the bylaws
adopted if nothing major is objected.

I put them in already. :wink:

David Nelson

We should think about announcing the Community Bylaws with a media alert (I would avoid writing a press release as there is already a huge amount of meat in the document). I think that we should address journos who have reported about TDF with a personal email.

+1. Can you prepare some text?

Charles-H. Schulz wrote (05-12-10 18:20)

I would like -if David is done with the additions- to call for a last
review of the text. Tomorrow morning, we will declare the bylaws
adopted if nothing major is objected.

(Nothing major: but I still see one occurrence of Chairman, where the officers are mentioned.)

Thank you everyone,

+ :slight_smile:

Hi, :slight_smile:

(Nothing major: but I still see one occurrence of Chairman, where the
officers are mentioned.)

Fixed. :wink:

David Nelson

Hi,

I would like -if David is done with the additions- to call for a last
review of the text. Tomorrow morning, we will declare the bylaws
adopted if nothing major is objected.

one last thought from my side. :slight_smile: I think it will be hard to do, but wanted to throw in the idea anyways:

The goal for the Foundation is to become independent from one single corporate sponsor. Independence is the key. By the current bylaws, in the worst case, two or three corporate sponsors could "take over" the BoD, dismiss officers, CEO and ED, and we've once again lost the independence we always wanted.

Yes, I know this is a bit of weird paranoia, and I don't think it will ever happen. :slight_smile: However, might it make sense to add one more rule that at least one or two seats of the BoD have to be staffed by paid or independent TDF members, by people not belonging to corporate sponsors (even if that is hard to verify)?

It's early in the morning, so if the thought is weird, just ignore it. :slight_smile:

Florian

Hi Florian,

Florian Effenberger wrote (06-12-10 07:44)

The goal for the Foundation is to become independent from one single
corporate sponsor. Independence is the key. By the current bylaws, in
the worst case, two or three corporate sponsors could "take over" the
BoD,...

If those two or three employ so many developers on LibO that they can have a very large majority when voting for BoD seats, that could happen.
But hey, two or three major sponsors cooperating in such an harmonius way in the project, would be so great :wink:

Cor

Hi,

If those two or three employ so many developers on LibO that they can
have a very large majority when voting for BoD seats, that could happen.
But hey, two or three major sponsors cooperating in such an harmonius
way in the project, would be so great :wink:

generally, yes, but on the other hand, this once again makes us very dependent, while we claim to be independent. Who can ensure that decisions are not made just for corporate benefit (once again playing paranoia)? :slight_smile:

Well, I'm totally undetermined on this point, so just as a thought from my side. :slight_smile:

Florian

Last call: are we good on this?

best
Charles.

Hello Charles, Florian, et al,

The document reads like a final statement of intentions for me.

Florian's earlier points regarding not excluding all TDF employees from
the board made good sense, particularly given the size of the foundation
currently,and a board consisting of 9 members, fewer board members (half
that) and I might disagree.

The one month governor in the solemn address clause I think was a good
addition. Opening us up to unwarranted agitation in the community was my
biggest concern in raising the point regarding a call for early
elections and this is a good way to mitigate that risk.

As for the later points on future full autonomy vs control by a small
group of corps. I think in the end there is no way to codify that risk
away, it just comes down to the people here. I would suggest that if the
board members act as stewards versus owners of the roles they take on
for the community, then the community and therefor the foundation should
flourish, independently. Given what I know of, who I know here, my
belief is that there is a good chance of just that happening.

IMO the likelihood of our staying independent, is much more dependent,
on the next phase of the Foundation's history. Constructing by
convention and act, rather then text, the 'nitty gritty' details of how,
as teams we will work together.

Guess that's a long winded +1 on the current draft as final.
(typos not withstanding :slight_smile:

Drew Jensen

Hello Drew,

Well spoken. And with that, I declare the Community Bylaws adopted
(provided nobody from the SC punches me in the face right away)...

Huzzah!
Charles.

Hi Charles, :slight_smile:

Hello Drew,

Well spoken. And with that, I declare the Community Bylaws adopted
(provided nobody from the SC punches me in the face right away)...

Huzzah!
Charles.

Does this mean I can now call you Monsieur Le President?

Great news that we now have the bylaws (or bye-laws!)

David Nelson

Thanks to everyone for their work!

Florian Effenberger 05 dicembre 2010 20.55:

+1. Can you prepare some text?

Yes, I will do it today or tomorrow. In any case, we must wait at least a couple of days before we can distribute another announcement.

Hi David,

@mmeeks: Michael, what exactly do you mean by this phrase:

"Members agree to work and contribute to an egalitarian community,
where roles are not titles and do not grant any special privileges."

Does that mean that there will be no team leads? If so, how will one
be able to have sufficient authority to organize and direct work? :wink:
I think I don't understand... Could you explain, maybe, please?

  Well - this is my view :slight_smile: it is perhaps not a sensible view, I'm open
to persuasion, and luckily I don't make these decisions the SC / board
does / will, but here is my advice:

  In my view, authority is conferred by two ways: hard work, and
relationship. Those who do the hard work, and build the product, teams
and relationships, will naturally lead those teams. Hopefully they do
this not alone, but with others too.

  AFAICS - giving an artificial "job title" to someone does not always
help them build an effective team that works well with others; and
indeed, it can hinder work or create conflict.

  Worse - while we would hope that a job title would reflect a reality:
that of someone (or the people) doing the most work in a given community
- the OO.o experience has shown us that -sometimes- these titles are
handed out like candy to random individuals, who then cease to do useful
work, or practically disappear :slight_smile: It seems to me that detecting these
cases, and arbitrating / transfering / handing out official titles is
some political nightmare that cannot be easily imposed from outside the
sub-community, and can go badly wrong inside it.

  That is contrasted to a fairly natural shift in control as new people
arrive to do more work, and others start to do less: this is the reality
of Free Software projects, managing a continuous flux of change and
turnover of people.

  Of course, if the Board wants to create this sort of arbitration and
selection problem, I defer to their wisdom; but I'm personally against
it. Clearly there are some formal roles it is hard to live without:
board member, spokesperson etc. Others IMHO do not need to be clear cut,
and are best left fluid.

  Does that make (some) sense ? :slight_smile:

  HTH,

    Michael.