[Bylaws] Process Re-visioning

[William Drake]

Hi

I see that people are beginning to noodle around with the doc at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eMYs3_odaFN01piVcvMAuxAu_nJyqX2oGYK1o10QuIU/edit <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eMYs3_odaFN01piVcvMAuxAu_nJyqX2oGYK1o10QuIU/edit> 

Please bear in mind, the text there is NOT the current bylaws.  These of course are at http://www.ncuc.org/governance/bylaws/ <http://www.ncuc.org/governance/bylaws/> 

The Google doc was a work in progress three years ago.  It is a mess (I have no idea why one member has said a couple times that she “did a revision” three years ago, because this incomplete compilation of ideas is where we stopped).  There are undoubtedly bits of the real bylaws that once of us cut out or changed but then never came back to.   Much of the red lettering was me playing around with stuff and may bear no connection to reality.  For example, all those red italicized section headings under IV don’t exist in the actual bylaws, and IV.A.20 was me trying to build in assigned functional roles like leading inreach, outreach, e-team etc., which again don't exist in the bylaws.

As such, I don’t think it makes sense for people to be diving in and tweaking a word here and there on that Google doc. What is the point of sitting around changing “the” to “a” on a working document from three years ago that has no status?

I’d argue that this process should start by working with the real bylaws and just use the Google working doc as a comparative reference point, as I suggested a few days ago.  

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:53 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> 
> On the third point, we need to consider also the comments and changes suggested in 2012.  I’d be loath to just set these aside as people spent time on them.  I guess what we could do as we walk through section by section is have two screens open comparing the suggestions then and the current bylaws for reference and then have a third new one we are doing where we move over and adapt newly agreed stuff?


Points suggested in 2012 that people think are potentially useful could be inserted in brackets or colors in a new doc for further discussion, but the core doc being worked on should be the actual bylaws.

And BTW don’t forget that when we are ready to send something to staff and the board, it will have to include a redlined version showing the exact changes being suggested.

More generally, the more I think about this, the more I wonder about the viability of Arun’s suggested schedule.

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Arun Mohan Sukumar <arunmohan.s at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> August 15 - 22 - Sections I, and II - Mission, Organisation and Structure
> August 23 - 30 - Section III - Membership
> August 31 - September 7 - Section IV - Executive Committee
> September 8 - 15 - Sections V and VI - Policy Committee and Voting
> September 16 - 23 - Sections VII, VIII - Leaving office and Changes to the Charter
> September 24 - October 1 - IX and X - Communications and Transparency

Again, there is no need to have a complete draft revision by Dublin, so a forced march through the sections on a tight schedule without sufficient antecedent discussion doesn’t seem sensible.  As I suggested at the outset,

> On Aug 8, 2015, at 5:18 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> 
>  It might be useful to begin by making a list of things that should be changed in order to conform with actual practice and the NCSG charter.  And a list of things that might be “nice to add” or delete. Build consensus in the team around these, develop a revision with line by line comments.  
> 
> If something can be assembled over the next two months, we can schedule a hour or more at Constituency Day in Dublin to go through it and discuss any particularly important decisions, like whether some sort of Policy Committee would still be needed for when the constituency wants to express its own views separate from a SG-wide consensus.  I also would argue for establishing a Vice Chair, and if we’re going down this route, registering with the US tax authorities as an independent entity so we can take donations more easily.  Inter alia.  Anyway, if we came out of Dublin with some broad consensus, then it will be easier for the new EC and the Bylaws Team to move this to conclusion be the end of the Q1 2016 and get it off to staff.

I really think we should start there, with a holistic view of the document, identify strengths and weaknesses, and then and devise inventories of 1) things we must change for NCSG charter conformity, 2) things we should change to reflect how we actually operate in the new SG context, and 3) things things it might be nice to change to enhance functionality.  Why not start by getting ideas out on the table, large and small, on each of these points, and then identify areas of agreement and disagreement to be worked through and be debated at the CD meeting?  There we could try to reach agreement on the model we want to build, and thereafter we could march through the sections and revise to conform text accordingly?  

Best

Bill




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/bylaws/attachments/20150819/19e7e5da/attachment.html>