Editing Policy/Past Meetings

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
This page contains the agendas of past meetings of the [[Policy Wonks]]. Please do not edit this page unless you are adding the minutes of a meeting.
This page contains the agendas of past meetings of the [[Policy Wonks]]. Please do not edit this page unless you are adding the minutes of a meeting.
==26 Feb 2012==
Location: Noisebridge, Turing Meeting Room, 19:37
Attendees:
[[user:hurtstotouchfire|Kelly]]; [[user:snail|Snail]]; [[user:flamsmark|Tom]]
Administriva:
* Agree who is going to edit the wiki pages.
* Copy this agenda to the [https://pad.riseup.net/p/0OyA0MRFYKtS etherpad] for group contribution.
* Agree on our next meeting time/place, post to the [Noisebridge#Upcoming_Events front page] and NB calendar, and invite policy@lists.
* Note the attendees of this meeting.
* Note any items of agreement.
* Add any proposed consensus items to next week's meeting notes.
Agenda:
* Kelly reports on CA public benefit law
* Tom reports on minimization of the bylaws
** Tom: proposal for ongoing Bylaws WG and system to maintain & update the bylaws
* Discuss modifications to the by-laws
Notes:
* Kelly reports on CA public benefit law
** [http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california/forming-nonprofit-corporation-california Non-profit Guidelines]
*** "You must have at least one director for your nonprofit public benefit corporation."
*** "You must state the number of directors in either the articles of incorporation or the bylaws of your nonprofit public benefit corporation."
*** "There are no set criteria for the content of bylaws, but they typically set forth internal rules and procedures."
*** "the existence and responsibilities of nonprofit corporate officers and directors"
*** "the size of the board of directors and the manner and term of their election"
*** "how and when board meetings will be held, and who may call meetings"
*** "how the board of directors will function"
**[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&group=05001-06000&file=5150-5153 CA code regarding bylaws]
**[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=corp&group=06001-07000&file=6320-6325 CA code on mandatory record keeping]
**[http://consensus.net/bylaws.html Recommended consensus bylaws]
**[https://bitbucket.org/coop.berkeley.bsc.ridge/bylaws/wiki/Home Berkeley co-op bylaws]
* Approach to writing the bylaws: we outline several high-level options, and solicit input, then work on the option that has best buy-in from Noisebridge
# Hands-off bylaws
#* Detailed bylaws which provide lots of guidance/suggestions, but which have few enforceable provisions, and don't tightly control our day-to-day operations
#* Pro: No one really has to read them and assholes can self-identify by quoting them.
#* Con: False to our values (or SO TRUE!), we don't really *need* another asshole detection system.
# Harm minimization bylaws
#* Middle ground bylaws, like what we have now. Should be improved so we don't substantively violate them in the course of our normal business.
#* Pro: Closer to our ideals, may still affect our actions rather than merely codifying them.
#* Con: Still kinda bullshit.
# Utopian bylaws
#* Minimally describes how we actually run things, but actually binds us to that.
#* Pro: Describes our ideals perfectly.
#* Con: Has to describe our ideals perfectly.
* There are certain things that we need to describe, whichever option we choose. These include:
**Board: elections/terms; powers/duties; board/member overlap
**Membership: powers; becoming; stopping being
**Decision-making: consensus; meetings
**Collective Action: spending money and making contracts
==16 Feb 2012==
==16 Feb 2012==
16 Feb 2012, 1730h
16 Feb 2012, 1730h
Location: Noisebridge, Turing Meeting Room
Location: Noisebridge, Turing Meeting Room


Attendees: [[User:flamsmark|Tom]], [[User:Snail|Snail]], Mitch, Kelly, [[User:SuperQ|SuperQ]], [[User:Leif|Leif]], Martin, Ron, David Schneider-Joseph, David Estes, Lots of people
Attendees: Lots of people


This meeting was derailed into a social engineering hybrid meeting with Mitch ([https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2012-February/028457.html see noisebridge discuss]). The [[Keycode Access]] system was also discussed extensively. None of the agenda items were covered.
This meeting was derailed into a social engineering hybrid meeting with Mitch ([https://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/2012-February/028457.html see noisebridge discuss]). The [[Keycode Access]] system was also discussed extensively. None of the agenda items were covered.
Line 87: Line 35:
*Tom
*Tom
**Rewrite bylaws into a skeleton format identifying issues that need to be fixed
**Rewrite bylaws into a skeleton format identifying issues that need to be fixed


== 11 Feb 2012 ==
== 11 Feb 2012 ==
Please note that all contributions to Noisebridge are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (see Noisebridge:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)