Re: [atlarge-discuss] Bylaws process/confidence/consensus,

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 14:27 -0800 2003/03/03, Jeff Williams wrote:
>Judyth and all,
>
>  We are in agreement here.  I am however not sure that the
>members are.  Perhaps this brief outlined bylaws development
>process is in need of a poll of some sort?  I would also point out
>that Jefsey did provide a Bylaws list by which those that were
>interested in participating could hash out a set of draft bylaws
>so that the members could than vote on the draft.

As I've said before, I'm willing to work within whatever
process the membership chooses. What I posted was intended
to be a discussion draft, not something people should vote
yes/no on.

We tried having a separate working group on a WG-Bylaws list but
it died out long ago without agreement even on a working method.
(No, it was not my fault, in case you were wondering.) In one
of the organizations whose bylaws committee I served on, it
took concerted efforts by a group of about a dozen people,
systematically working their way through one section at a time,
to prepare a draft for consideration by the whole membership.
What we've had instead are postings of several possible
models to follow and virtually no analysis of the effects
of adopting any one of them as a whole, let alone clause-by-
clause analysis or editing for internal consistency.

I would not have even started my own separate draft had the
WG process worked. Since it didn't and there had been no
progress at all for some months, I thought I'd have a shot
at getting us started again. There have been a few responses
already -- including yours -- which seem to indicate an
awareness that we do need to deal with this issue. What I'd
really like to see, whether here or on the separate list,
is discussion and amendment of my clauses, posting of
suggestions by others, and eventually a complete draft.

Do we need to poll the membership on whether or not they
want any bylaws at all? Personally, I think if we did and
the answer was "no", it would mean the members didn't
really want an organization at all while if they said
"yes" we'd be in exactly the same position we're in now.

Do we need a poll to ask whether members are interested
in participating in the process? Perhaps ... but if members
aren't willing to read the (admittedly dry) material,
they will surely be unable to know what they are
becoming members of or what the organization will do.
Anyway, if nobody's really interested in talking about
the organization's structure and rules, it will soon be
apparent and I won't bother to post other sections.

HTH,

Judyth

##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de