From Noisebridge
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

2008-05-22: I just made significant changes to the membership section. I combined and simplified what we had, and imported a few ideas from the CIRGIS bylaws. In most places where we had contradictory statements I kept the simplest one.

Some things to consider:

  • Name - Current discussion over email seems to be favor Noisebridge or Noise Bridge rather than Noisebridge Research, once it's decided, fix everywhere -- Changed to "Noisebridge" 5/22/08
  • address may need apartment or mailbox number to be valid mailing address
  • article membership section rights of members: I added the bit about rights granted by the board, to avoid limiting the rights of members to those stated, but perhaps there's a better way to ensure this.
  • article membership section members: does board or treasurer decide dues? Should we have/require membership applications/waivers?
  • article membership section quorum: is 1/3 quorum and majority to pass resolution what we want?
  • 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.
  • the CIRGIS bylaws linked below look like a pretty good model to refer to.

A really detailed set of Bylaws

Much simpler:

Personal tools