[Community] summary of last week's (3/28/2007) call

[Owen Davis]

+1.  "the only power the Stewards Council has in this area is to  
remove a working group"

Removing a working group should likely be a last resort after other  
approaches (decreasing reputation, fines or other disciplinary  
actions) fail.

+1  "If our concern is about how to recognize the particular  
individual as indeed the representative of a particular working  
group, we have a good concern"

A groups charter needs to include how the group will choose stewards  
and the choosing process should be documented so that the stewards  
council can audit.  Perhaps a description of the process needs to be  
submitted everytime a steward is selected.  Having these records may  
need to be a requirement to remain in good standing.

On Apr 5, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Joaquin Miller wrote:

> Folks
>
> From the notes of last weeks call:
>
>>   * Working Groups decide for themselves the process for
>>     changing/removing their Stewards.  The only way the Stewards  
>> Council
>>     can remove a Steward is to decharter a Working Group.  Joaquin
>>     suggested we need a provision for removing a Steward in the  
>> articles.
>>     Bill suggested "replacing" is a better word than "removing."
>
> I don't recall the conversation here, but I'm absolutely certain of  
> this: Putting aside which is a better word, 'to replace' and 'to  
> remove' have entirely different meanings.
>
> Bill, no doubt, meant 'replacing' was a better word for whatever we  
> were talking about at that poing.  I don't believe the Stewards  
> have any authority to replace a steward.
>
> If we all agree that the only power the Stewards Council has in  
> this area is to remove a working group, then we don't need any  
> process for replacing a Steward nor a process for removing a steward.
>
> If our concern is about how to recognize the particular individual  
> as indeed the representative of a particular working group, we have  
> a good concern.  (This could arise when two persons present  
> themselves, both claiming to be the representative.  (Don't think  
> this can't happen.)  It could be even stickier, if each has a group  
> behind them, both groups claiming to be the authentic working group.)
>
> Let's put the rules for that in the articles.  Nothing is more  
> important to the operation of the legal entity than the procedures  
> for determining who the Stewards are.
>
> Cordially, Joauqin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> Community at idcommons.net
> http://mail.idcommons.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.idcommons.net/pipermail/community/attachments/20070405/dab94959/attachment.html