[Bylaws] Status?

[Timothe Litt]

Bill,

Thanks for the update.  If previous status on this initiative showed up
on the main members list, I missed it.  There have been issues where
things in e-mail to the list are marked as spam.   As I get the list in
digest mode, that means losing a day...

It would have been a good idea to post those events to this list, as the
team signed up to work on the revisions.  It would also be a good idea
to update the website's "a revision is expected" statement.

Yes, when the bylaws are revised, they should include language
concerning resignation.  The point of bylaws is to reduce the amount of
knowledge that is carried around as folklore, which tends to prevent
issues.  And so people know what they're signing up for.  This is
consistent with other professional societies.  For example, Article 3
section 3 at http://www.acm.org/about/constitution.  By the way, the ACM
bylaws are at http://www.acm.org/about/bylaws.  Although both documents
are for an organization of greater complexity and scope, they might be
worth reviewing when (if?) the effort is revived.

Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed. 

On 01-Apr-15 04:48, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Timothe
>
> As has been mentioned a number of times on the main members list and
> at Constituency Day meetings, this initiative has been on hold for a
> number of reasons.  Two efforts to get a team going stalled from lack
> of a facilitator and significant engagement.  I then reach out to
> several veterans including the folks who did the last version and said
> look why don’t we just take a week and do this, and the view was why
> bother when what we’d really like to do is see if we can’t move to the
> integrated SG model we advocated at the dawn of NCSG rather than
> doubling down on the dysfunctional constituency silo model.  So I
> started poking around with some board members and asking do you think
> it’s conceivable we could ever get the board to accept that, and got
> varying responses, some encouraging us to make a proposal and some
> saying that’d probably set off a more divisive holy war do you think
> it’s worth it.  Then the GNSO Review process was launched, in which
> context the structures of interest aggregation in the GNSO will be
> debated.  The initial draft from the consultant was full of
> agenda-driven nonsense, which we and others have pushed back on, and
> we’re now waiting to see what the revision will look like.  The
> consultant are to provide this in late April, and then the community
> review team will provide input, there’ll be a public comment period,
> etc.  By the BA meeting I would hope we will be able to have a more
> focused discussion, which together with the pending churn of the Board
> Structural Improvements Committee should provide clarity on the larger
> picture going forward.  If the upshot is that we are permanently
> wedded to a system that basically just wastes peoples’ time and
> distracts energies from policy work etc, then I would be happy to try
> once again to work with whomever is willing to spend some cycles to
> redo the Bylaws and align them with the current realities of the
> constituency’s role in the SG.  But we’re not there yet, and expending
> the time now while things are up  in the air and people are swamped
> with other items doesn’t seem so sensible.  I don’t believe the board
> is thinking about this or in a position to act anytime soon with all
> else that’s going on in parallel.
>
> As to quitting: anyone can quit anytime.  It’s a volunteer association
> like any civil society network or professional association, not a
> penal colony.  If someone says drop me from the membership list, for
> whatever reason, we drop them, end of story.  This has never been an
> issue, but if and when we do a revision I suppose we could put that in
> writing if people think it’s helpful.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/bylaws/attachments/20150401/f9b7fa99/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4942 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/bylaws/attachments/20150401/f9b7fa99/attachment-0002.bin>