[Community] summary of today's (4/18/2007) call

[Bill Washburn]

+1  

also...
I would offer that removing an "inactive steward" (to be explicitly delineated in the bylaws, obviously) ought to be far more straight forward than dissovling a working group.  Maybe I'm still missing something, but to me  the prospect of removing a  working group  (which is a community in its own right usually) from the upside-down-umbrella meta-community of ID Commons is not to be done lightly, or thought of as a simple matter of majority rule, or to be measured by remaining "active" in some prescribed fashion.  

I believe a community commons is far more important, more nuanced, and naturally more complicated than that.  The Internet is most of all a vast commons ultimately and it's most basic value is caught up in its profoundly diverse nature.  Of that I believe there can be little or no doubt.

cheers,
-bill

Brett wrote:

<snip>

I think "a majority of those voting when a quorum is present" is fair  
and a common practice for basic decisions.  The question I have is  
whether or not we want a class of decisions that require more  
explicit participation.  For example we could require 75% of all  
stewards to approve something like the dissolution of a Working Group.

>
>     Our consensus on the call was that the answer should be yes.  The
>     difficulty is if we have a bunch of inactive Stewards or inactive
>     Working Groups who aren't participating.

That's why we need the ability to remove Stewards from our quorum for  
lack of participation.  Whether or not that means we have to dissolve  
their WG as well is a question raised on a recent call... was that  
resolved?




_______________________________________________
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/20070418/5521d59f/attachment.html