* Review 10.04 launch event * turnout * format * general * Discuss 10.10 initial plans * Install fest in Ithaca -- [[LaunchpadHome:cprofitt]] <> * Linux workshops in Syracuse (UCF) and Rochester (Interlock) * Review inconsistencies in the By-Laws -- [[LaunchpadHome:cprofitt]] <> * options: * revise by-laws * remove by-laws * Discuss function of website * maintain and revise or ?? * Posting 'location' on website * a member of the loco council has indicated that this is an issue * Discuss changes to membership process -- [[LaunchpadHome:ausimage]] = Minutes = {{{#!irc 2010-05-19T01:00:06 Welcome everyone. Can I get a roll call please. 2010-05-19T01:00:15 just say here or present 2010-05-19T01:00:22 here! 2010-05-19T01:00:24 here 2010-05-19T01:00:26 first too 2010-05-19T01:00:30 ;) 2010-05-19T01:01:01 We have some big topics to discuss tonight... but I want to get some of the smaller ones out of the way first. 2010-05-19T01:01:31 the first topic is the 10.04 launch party we had in Waterloo on May 1st 2010-05-19T01:01:53 I would like to thank slick6661, ducky and ausimage for putting together a well organized event 2010-05-19T01:01:58 preseny 2010-05-19T01:02:15 the speakers were good, the install fest / help time was well done and the food was perfect 2010-05-19T01:02:15 i enjoyed it and would like to thank everyone involved in pulling it off 2010-05-19T01:02:28 the format I thought was good... 2010-05-19T01:02:38 did anyone else have comments about it? 2010-05-19T01:02:47 we may have sounded a bit preachy in regards to the MS/Apple comments 2010-05-19T01:03:09 * cprofitt nods 2010-05-19T01:03:16 that's my only complaint 2010-05-19T01:03:26 I agree we were a bit harsh on them... given that it was a public information event 2010-05-19T01:03:33 thanks for making that point hal14450 2010-05-19T01:03:37 I think we could have improved our outreach 2010-05-19T01:03:48 attendance was lower this time than in past events 2010-05-19T01:03:50 outreach - meaning advertising? 2010-05-19T01:03:56 attendance was low 2010-05-19T01:03:57 yea 2010-05-19T01:04:04 *** AutumnAi has quit IRC 2010-05-19T01:04:08 Yes, I think attendance was low... 2010-05-19T01:04:29 i think it may be better to hold it closer to either roc or syr or both 2010-05-19T01:04:34 I think location may have impacted that... this was the 3rd event in Waterloo in a row 2010-05-19T01:04:46 with no major launch events in Syracuse or Rochester 2010-05-19T01:05:03 we pretty much saw the 'usual suspects' and less of them than normal 2010-05-19T01:05:08 * cprofitt nods to Dave123-road 2010-05-19T01:05:12 agreed 2010-05-19T01:05:29 I agree I think if we want to grow the 'reach' we need to do some stuff in local areas 2010-05-19T01:05:44 slipping in to the next topic... 2010-05-19T01:05:54 I have already reserved a date for a 10.10 launch in Rochester 2010-05-19T01:06:03 November 6th - at Barnes and Noble 2010-05-19T01:06:19 slick6661: I believe is planning for an event in Syracuse for 10.10 as well 2010-05-19T01:07:01 is it the opinoin of the group that we should have simulanous events? 2010-05-19T01:07:09 same day? 2010-05-19T01:07:15 I waiver on that... 2010-05-19T01:07:23 fair enough to have more local rls parties we've given the 'central' approach a shot 2010-05-19T01:07:28 we have a very small core group who can pull these things off 2010-05-19T01:07:54 the venue in waterloo is fine just its in no mans land 2010-05-19T01:08:14 but I think we are likely to have more people being willing and able to support the effort if we are closer to the two major population centers we have 2010-05-19T01:08:35 Dave123-road, yes it's just too far to draw a crowd and hasn't drawn much other than the choir to preach to 2010-05-19T01:08:42 As we can discuss when the bylaws come up I think it might be best for local groups to pick a date that works for them 2010-05-19T01:08:59 and not worry about other areas -- but it will impact where people can be 2010-05-19T01:09:19 I try to support Syracuse, but if Syracuse and Rochester have events on the same day I can't do both... 2010-05-19T01:09:26 the same goes for everyone 2010-05-19T01:09:38 cprofitt, we can help out where we can 2010-05-19T01:09:51 in the end I think local 'leaders' need to figure out what is best for their area 2010-05-19T01:09:55 Dave123-road: thanks 2010-05-19T01:10:16 I think Rochester has a good pool of talent that simply has not made the trip to Waterloo 2010-05-19T01:10:25 and I know Syracuse has a good pool as well 2010-05-19T01:10:37 slick6661: have you thought about a date for Syracuse yet? 2010-05-19T01:10:51 weekends have worked out well for us in the past 2010-05-19T01:11:05 yeah -- November 6th is the first Saturday I believe 2010-05-19T01:11:11 depending on the final realease date it will ikely be the next Saturday 2010-05-19T01:11:14 central might be good for a special event but not for every rls imho 2010-05-19T01:11:21 Saturdays are better in the fall 2010-05-19T01:11:38 yeah -- I like the idea of doing a centralized or statewide event for each RTS 2010-05-19T01:12:05 cool... well we can keep working on that... 2010-05-19T01:12:16 but Rochester is set for November 6th 2010-05-19T01:12:31 I had Barnes and Noble @ RIT reserve the room for 4 hours 2010-05-19T01:12:31 cool 2010-05-19T01:12:42 * deejoe_ looks around 2010-05-19T01:12:47 works for me 2010-05-19T01:12:48 *** deejoe_ is now known as deejoe 2010-05-19T01:12:49 it was great to be able to get a Saturday from them 2010-05-19T01:12:51 hey deejoe 2010-05-19T01:12:54 lo deejoe 2010-05-19T01:12:58 alright... install fest in Ithace 2010-05-19T01:13:09 oh? 2010-05-19T01:13:16 the IFSA has expressed an interest in holding a co-branded install fest with us 2010-05-19T01:13:27 but we have not had time to get that planned with the LTS release 2010-05-19T01:13:32 they have a date in mind? 2010-05-19T01:13:37 how many would be able to assist with such a venture 2010-05-19T01:13:44 no, no date in mind at this time 2010-05-19T01:13:54 id be willing depending on date/time 2010-05-19T01:13:57 I wanted to gauge general interest and then start working on it with those guys 2010-05-19T01:14:01 if we get a carpool i'm willing to venture down there 2010-05-19T01:14:04 I'm too close to miss that one 2010-05-19T01:14:12 I think you can count on Ducky too 2010-05-19T01:14:17 alright... so we have good strong interest 2010-05-19T01:14:31 slick6661: if the timing was right could you guys do your normal local repo setup? 2010-05-19T01:15:11 I think so 2010-05-19T01:15:13 I will start with those guys on trying to get a good location for such an event -- Ithaca College, Cornell -- something like that... 2010-05-19T01:15:19 thanks guys 2010-05-19T01:15:23 I will keep you all posted 2010-05-19T01:15:29 all right... 2010-05-19T01:15:47 i think cornell or ithaca college have repos but i'm not positive on that 2010-05-19T01:15:49 I wonder if storefronts on the Ithaca Commons might be available 2010-05-19T01:15:57 there's often some churn in their occupancy 2010-05-19T01:16:19 I wanted to let folks know that the monthly events in Rochester have been converted to Saturdays and are now a Workshop once a month for four hours 2010-05-19T01:16:23 deejoe, that's an interesting idea 2010-05-19T01:16:25 the idea is to have a more hands on session 2010-05-19T01:16:33 * cprofitt nods to deejoe about the storefront idea 2010-05-19T01:16:40 its just the tubes we would need to worry about 2010-05-19T01:16:55 up in triphammer mall they have a computer recycling place that was supposed to have opened in the last month 2010-05-19T01:17:07 at least some of the involved folk are linux-savvy/friendly 2010-05-19T01:17:17 good to know 2010-05-19T01:17:18 I also have been to the UCF in Syracuse and think its the perfect place for such workshops too. 2010-05-19T01:17:27 deejoe: nice -- do you have any contact information? 2010-05-19T01:18:16 http://fingerlakesreuse.org/ecenter.shtml 2010-05-19T01:18:20 had to look it up 2010-05-19T01:18:29 bookmarked 2010-05-19T01:18:53 will look at that after the meetings 2010-05-19T01:19:05 ok 2010-05-19T01:19:24 slick6661: will syracuse be holding any events in the next few months? 2010-05-19T01:20:33 the next event that has been discussed in another jam type session 2010-05-19T01:20:42 no dates set yet 2010-05-19T01:21:05 cool... any thoughts about doing some hands-on or training type things? 2010-05-19T01:22:03 not much developement in that area but I'll bring it up 2010-05-19T01:22:12 the last thing before we get to some of our larger topics is just an FYI -- due to a discussion with one of the LoCo Council we took down the page that had 'location' information for many of our members 2010-05-19T01:22:19 * cprofitt nods to slick 2010-05-19T01:22:25 alright... 2010-05-19T01:22:35 I would really like to hear from everyone on this next subject 2010-05-19T01:22:47 it is an important topic 2010-05-19T01:23:09 I hope you all got a chance to look at our current bylaws 2010-05-19T01:23:10 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewYorkTeam/ByLaws 2010-05-19T01:23:28 and some suggestions for ammendments or changes 2010-05-19T01:23:29 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewYorkTeam/ByLawsAmendments 2010-05-19T01:24:12 the reason for considering this is that the original bylaws were crafted with the intent of the LoCo being a not for profit corporation 2010-05-19T01:24:24 hence the need for formal bylaws and officers, etc 2010-05-19T01:24:42 this is not something that, at least with the name Ubuntu attached, is possible 2010-05-19T01:25:03 *** Zeike has quit IRC 2010-05-19T01:25:06 I also looked at all the other state LoCos and unless I missed it none of them have bylaws 2010-05-19T01:25:18 they have a more informal doocracy style and strucutre 2010-05-19T01:25:27 which I think truly is how we function 2010-05-19T01:25:39 our current bylaws require meetings that we have not held... 2010-05-19T01:25:49 and other formalities that I think are intimidating to some 2010-05-19T01:26:06 they mention dues... and fees 2010-05-19T01:26:11 *** Zeike has joined #ubuntu-us-ny 2010-05-19T01:26:25 quarterly meetings 2010-05-19T01:26:35 there are also some inconsistencies 2010-05-19T01:26:48 with a mention of annual election meetings, but two year terms 2010-05-19T01:27:13 to this end, as you know, I sent out notice that we are considering changing or eliminating the bylaws 2010-05-19T01:27:29 * deejoe has seen the ReLoCo structure when hanging out in #ubuntu-us-oh 2010-05-19T01:27:46 yes, that is what I think we are aiming for... what we kind of already are 2010-05-19T01:27:47 i think, originally some of them did have bylaws but have since relaxed the structure, and i see no point in trying to maintain something we can't achieve while using the ubuntu name so there really isn't much point in a formal structure unless someone else has a reason i haven't thought of 2010-05-19T01:28:09 I would like to ask for everyone to voice any opinions that they have 2010-05-19T01:28:31 I'm fine with a less formal structure 2010-05-19T01:28:42 I think it matches our resources and demonstrated abilities 2010-05-19T01:29:24 it does 2010-05-19T01:29:51 JamesAdams: jMyles_ Zeike asymptote ausimage DavidLevin IamReck do any of you have thoughts? 2010-05-19T01:30:30 pick up the ball and trun w/ it in your area is an attitiude that promotes people getting involved in whatever capacity they feel is appropriate 2010-05-19T01:30:42 Looking at the proposed ammendments -- really a total re-write and a elimiation of them 2010-05-19T01:30:53 does anyone have a preference to which change would be adopted 2010-05-19T01:31:21 option 2 looks better to me, admittedly on a quick read through 2010-05-19T01:31:45 also, drawing your attention to Article VIII -- Amendments -- I believe we are following the current bylaws 2010-05-19T01:31:49 not sure what option 1 would result in 2010-05-19T01:32:04 deejoe: it would result in no formal document called bylaws 2010-05-19T01:32:07 I'm inclined to agree 2010-05-19T01:32:09 but the same basic structure... 2010-05-19T01:32:12 just not formalized 2010-05-19T01:32:29 we would likely make a structure page and put the same stuff down 2010-05-19T01:32:38 for option 1 2010-05-19T01:33:12 so, does option 2 only replace the indicated articles, and leave the other numbered articles intact? 2010-05-19T01:33:22 no, option 2 is the total document 2010-05-19T01:33:28 it encourages and empowers more members to get involved on their own terms if we dissolve the formal structure via either means 2010-05-19T01:34:06 I think I lean towards no official bylaws -- go with a structure page 2010-05-19T01:34:14 and that lets us be more adaptable 2010-05-19T01:34:55 yeah, option 2 isn't probably structured enough to be bylaws as such 2010-05-19T01:35:01 so maybe option 1 would be better 2010-05-19T01:35:26 * cprofitt nods 2010-05-19T01:35:41 I did not see a single other US LoCo with bylaws... 2010-05-19T01:35:50 i'm happy with either choice so long as we wind up w/ the same results as in encouraging people to become more active on their own terms and not worry about what the leadership thinks is appropriate 2010-05-19T01:35:52 and really do not see the sense in having formal bylaws 2010-05-19T01:36:19 to advert your attention back to our current bylaws 2010-05-19T01:36:27 Article VIII Section 1 2010-05-19T01:37:16 hal14450 & cprofitt, does that cover the 2/3rds? 2010-05-19T01:37:21 I sent the proposed changes - both options to slick6661 (our secretary) and because he was out of town I sent both the general meeting announcement and the special leadership meeting announcement out 2010-05-19T01:37:41 I want to ensure that meets the requirements 2010-05-19T01:37:42 deejoe, good question 2010-05-19T01:37:53 i think it should 2010-05-19T01:37:56 we have four leaders currently 2010-05-19T01:38:02 ausimage, you there? 2010-05-19T01:38:05 ausimage, hal14450, slick6661 and myself 2010-05-19T01:38:10 ah 2010-05-19T01:38:18 well, then 2010-05-19T01:38:34 if, at the leadership meeting, hal14450 - slick6661 - and myself agree we would have enough despite ausimage being absent 2010-05-19T01:38:39 hard to get exactly two thirds, but if hal14450 slick6661 and cprofitt agree, it's done, I'd say 2010-05-19T01:38:42 yeah 2010-05-19T01:38:49 well... 3/4 > 2/3 2010-05-19T01:38:57 yup 2010-05-19T01:39:10 agreed 2010-05-19T01:39:26 ok... 2010-05-19T01:39:38 so the leaders will meet after this meeting and take a vote on that... 2010-05-19T01:39:42 for formality sake 2010-05-19T01:39:47 perhaps the last formallity sake 2010-05-19T01:39:49 :-) 2010-05-19T01:40:22 alright... website (the wiki maintained outside the Ubuntu sphere) and the wiki (wiki.ubuntu.com/NewYorkTeam) 2010-05-19T01:40:38 I would like to get feedback again on this issue 2010-05-19T01:41:30 My concern is the out-of-date information on main.newyork-ubuntu.com 2010-05-19T01:41:35 and the duplication of information 2010-05-19T01:41:40 agreed 2010-05-19T01:41:47 does anyone have any thoughts on this? 2010-05-19T01:41:48 i've expressed my opinion that the team website should probably remain static as it's become difficult to insure it being up to date which can leave prospective members with the impression we're not very active 2010-05-19T01:42:18 what is the purpose of the main website? 2010-05-19T01:42:24 keep in mind that ausimage maintains this site... it is his baby 2010-05-19T01:42:36 slick6661: not sure... what the original purpose is 2010-05-19T01:42:38 is ausimage even here? 2010-05-19T01:42:56 most LoCos seem to use it as a public facing portal to their team 2010-05-19T01:43:01 i think the site itself is well done and ausimage has put a lot of effort into it but it's not up to date last i checked 2010-05-19T01:43:25 and the wiki.ubuntu.com site as their on going organizational keeping track of things site 2010-05-19T01:43:41 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PennsylvaniaTeam 2010-05-19T01:43:51 http://ubuntupennsylvania.org/ 2010-05-19T01:44:03 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MassachusettsTeam 2010-05-19T01:44:09 http://www.ubuntu-massachusetts.com/ 2010-05-19T01:44:40 I personally am cool with any use -- as long as we do not duplicate data (effort) and that it is maintained and not out of date 2010-05-19T01:44:53 statename-ubuntu vs ubuntu-statename always drives me to distraction 2010-05-19T01:45:05 everyone can easily edit the official canonical site provided they sign up where as the team site isn't editable by everyone so being that we're leaning towards more locally active groups it makes even more sense to have the team webby static 2010-05-19T01:45:25 http://main.newyork-ubuntu.com/Activities/HomePage 2010-05-19T01:45:38 that page has one event listed since December of 2009 2010-05-19T01:46:21 love what the MA team has done 2010-05-19T01:46:22 we have had 22 2010-05-19T01:46:30 yeah -- I like the MA team too 2010-05-19T01:46:36 doctormo does good work 2010-05-19T01:47:17 seems like a valid and sensible option to have the team site become a static page then 2010-05-19T01:47:37 so I will take the opinion of the group and ask ausimage to act on it... 2010-05-19T01:47:56 do we feel a more startic public facing presence is what we want out of our website? 2010-05-19T01:48:01 or... 2010-05-19T01:48:33 *** paultag_ has joined #ubuntu-us-ny 2010-05-19T01:48:36 from talking w/ jag recently i think he wants the donate button removed as it defaults to his paypal 2010-05-19T01:48:47 we can do that regardless then hal14450 2010-05-19T01:48:52 these seem like reasonable changes 2010-05-19T01:48:59 he's been hosting it for us for free for years now 2010-05-19T01:49:22 ok... I would like to take a vote 2010-05-19T01:49:32 does your bot do votes slick6661 ? 2010-05-19T01:49:56 hmmmm 2010-05-19T01:49:59 1 sec 2010-05-19T01:50:04 lol 2010-05-19T01:50:09 no worries... if not we can do it the old fashioned way 2010-05-19T01:50:29 +1 = yes, 0 = abstain, -1 = no 2010-05-19T01:51:04 we would like to convert our website to a static presentation similar to the MA page 2010-05-19T01:51:08 +1 2010-05-19T01:51:11 +1 2010-05-19T01:51:14 +1 2010-05-19T01:51:27 deejoe: Dave123-road 2010-05-19T01:51:40 +1 2010-05-19T01:51:44 any other votes? 2010-05-19T01:51:57 last call for votes 2010-05-19T01:52:10 ok we have unanimously decided to make that change 2010-05-19T01:52:39 I will send an email to ausimage and let him know... if anyone would like to offer assistance -- be it coding, text bits, layout, or art please let me know 2010-05-19T01:53:01 I hope that this reduces the burden that ausimage has been carrying 2010-05-19T01:53:21 the last topic was ausimage's topic 2010-05-19T01:53:25 I do have an account on the site 2010-05-19T01:53:27 FYI 2010-05-19T01:53:37 does anyone wish to discuss the membership process? 2010-05-19T01:54:19 ok... meeting adjourned 2010-05-19T01:54:22 i think the site looks good the way it is but we just need to make sure it's static and we should possibly keep the calendar feature but not rely on it for events and be certain to point people to the canonical wiki for up to date info 2010-05-19T01:54:22 thanks everyone 2010-05-19T01:54:53 leaders if you can meet in the leadership channel we can hold our conversation and vote about the bylaws 2010-05-19T01:55:42 all other members are welcome to come and watch the meeting 2010-05-19T01:55:56 it is a public meeting, but I did not want to tie this channel down with more meeting time 2010-05-19T01:56:12 ##ubuntu-us-ny-leaders 2010-05-19T01:56:19 please feel free to join us there }}} = Special Leadership meeting = In accordance with Article VI section 2 of our current by-laws I am calling a special leadership meeting. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the potential amendment of our current by-laws with the intention on holding a vote. In accordance with Article VIII section 1 I need you to send notice to the current leaders of the team including the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments are: ----- Amendment Option 1: Abolishment of By-Laws which will be replaced by an informal team structure document. ----- Amendment Option 2: The current By-laws will be amended to read: ==== Article 1: Team Leadership ==== section 1: The NY State Local Community team will have a primary contact and a secondary contact. * The lead contact will be responsible for distribution of the resources received from the Ubuntu community and Canonical * The lead contact shall be responsible for organizing the teams re-application for approved status * The lead contact shall be responsible for communicating the concerns of members to the greater Ubuntu community section 2: The purpose of the secondary contact is in the case of the primary contact being out of contact for a period of three months. If the primary contact can not be reached the secondary contact will automatically be elevated to primary contact section 3: ==== Article 2: Central Team Meetings ==== section 1: The team shall meet monthly on IRC to facilitate the co-ordination of regional or state-wide events * The meeting time and date will be set by the lead contact in consultation with the membership * The team will meet in #ubuntu-us-ny on freenode.net section 2: The team irc channel shall be available to any sub-team for on-line meetings. * The sub-group should post details of the meeting on the Ubuntu wiki meeting page so others are aware that they meeting is taking place ==== Article 3: Sub-Teams ==== section 1: The New York State Local Team acknowledges that New York State is a large geographic region containing several major cities and the needs of Ubuntu users would be best met by local groups organizing local events * Any person interesting in running a 'really' local team will be able to add their team information to a special page on teams Ubuntu wiki * Every attempt will be made to support the 'really' local teams with resources from the Ubuntu community and Canonical ---- = Minutes = {{{#!irc 2010-05-19T02:01:41 I would like to call this special leadership meeting to order 2010-05-19T02:01:47 can all leaders say here 2010-05-19T02:01:48 here 2010-05-19T02:01:58 here 2010-05-19T02:02:43 here 2010-05-19T02:02:58 please note that ausimage is not present 2010-05-19T02:03:04 noted 2010-05-19T02:03:16 would anyone like to discuss this issue? 2010-05-19T02:03:38 I did not see any objection from the general members present at the meeting 2010-05-19T02:03:45 from previous discussions with ausimage i can safely say that he's probably considering resigning at this point since he's disagreed with the positions that we take on just about every topic we've discussed tonight so it's no surprise he's absent 2010-05-19T02:04:09 and i find that sad to be honest 2010-05-19T02:04:31 I certainly hope that he will not. His contribution to the team has been tremendous 2010-05-19T02:04:39 i agree 2010-05-19T02:05:10 which option do you both prefer? 2010-05-19T02:05:24 regarding the bylaws? 2010-05-19T02:05:43 yes 2010-05-19T02:06:01 i'd say we should rewrite them to reflect the decentralized nature which has been successful in other teams 2010-05-19T02:06:17 to me it doesn't really matter what form they are in so long as they do what we need 2010-05-19T02:06:20 re-write them as bylaws -- or as a structure document? 2010-05-19T02:06:34 if a functional document fits the bill best lets go with that 2010-05-19T02:06:37 slick6661: I agree... 2010-05-19T02:06:52 I would prefer to just work out the specifics moving forward and put them on the wiki 2010-05-19T02:06:54 we have no hope of becoming a non-profit while retaining the ubuntu name so there really is no reason to keep such a formal structure 2010-05-19T02:07:02 k 2010-05-19T02:07:09 shall we vote on option 1 then... 2010-05-19T02:07:43 we will have some stuff to discuss after the vote... so please stick around... 2010-05-19T02:07:49 i feel the same as slick does but i think option 1 shows respect to the initial efforts 2010-05-19T02:08:31 option 1 being the replacment of the bylaws with an informal structure document? 2010-05-19T02:08:37 just to make sure hal14450 2010-05-19T02:08:43 I want to make sure we are all on the same page 2010-05-19T02:08:52 sorry i though option 1 was a rewrite 2010-05-19T02:09:13 option 2 is a re-write with keeping an official bylaws document 2010-05-19T02:09:19 Review inconsistencies in the By-Laws -- cprofitt 2010-04-02 11:42:24 2010-05-19T02:09:19 * options: 2010-05-19T02:09:19 o revise by-laws 2010-05-19T02:09:19 o remove by-laws 2010-05-19T02:09:20 nope option one is the new structure document, option 2 is a rewrite of the current doc 2010-05-19T02:09:53 hal14450: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewYorkTeam/ByLawsAmendments 2010-05-19T02:10:07 sorry reversed the options on the meeting page 2010-05-19T02:10:19 the ammendments page is the Option 1 vs Option 2 2010-05-19T02:10:25 ahh 2010-05-19T02:10:28 my bad 2010-05-19T02:10:37 basically Option 1 takes the stuff in Option 2 but will not call it bylaws 2010-05-19T02:10:44 it will just be on a structure page 2010-05-19T02:10:53 no need for the formality of bylaws 2010-05-19T02:11:02 2 seems the best choice to me 2010-05-19T02:11:16 as deejoe pointed out I am not even sure that Option 2 would qualify as a bylaw 2010-05-19T02:11:22 shows respect for the previous efforts and all 2010-05-19T02:11:31 * cprofitt nods 2010-05-19T02:11:43 hal14450 why does option 2 look more appealing? 2010-05-19T02:11:58 well if it can't be done like that then we'll have to kill them i suppose 2010-05-19T02:13:14 there was a lot of (wasted) effort we put into trying to get the team to become a non-profit and i'd like to respect that effort by revising instead of trashing 2010-05-19T02:13:19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bylaw 2010-05-19T02:13:35 I'm inclined to go with option 1 because I feel it gives us a little more flexibility (maybe) and I think it marks a clear change in direction 2010-05-19T02:13:53 I certainly want to respect what was done... 2010-05-19T02:14:07 but I am concerned with calling them bylaws because of the conotation that holds 2010-05-19T02:14:29 just using the word bylaws with the LoCo council member I spoke to caused a 'raised eyebrow' 2010-05-19T02:14:32 i think either marks a clear change in direction but we clearly don't want formalities getting in the way any more so i'm okay with option 1 if need be 2010-05-19T02:15:13 http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:9tvuRqzuBgEJ:tomstreeter.com/Minimum%2520Standard%2520Bylaws.pdf+bylaws+requirements&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgDNSnyBUc8GvoJpDyr1IwGSmgcTmVg2YgfEnBuZLZN4-XPJUXdtAxX7I9ZHWgQwTKERBhYq4Pvkniq5DdFUxtHpH_nhpDNQPA3-FwBqW6DMTBATMx33bNCFqM987lYtGU59FRN&sig=AHIEtbQUu6mUd8-jsW0ZpQEWipsUDvQkcA 2010-05-19T02:15:19 gah -- sorry for that 2010-05-19T02:15:35 damn google docs 2010-05-19T02:15:41 those are supposeduly the minimum standards for bylaws 2010-05-19T02:15:51 * hal14450 doesn't trust google enough to let them run scripts 2010-05-19T02:15:52 lol 2010-05-19T02:15:54 for mensa chapters 2010-05-19T02:16:10 I dunno... 2010-05-19T02:16:20 any objections to voting? 2010-05-19T02:16:44 no objections 2010-05-19T02:16:59 nope 2010-05-19T02:17:01 +1/0/-1 again 2010-05-19T02:17:22 for which option? 2010-05-19T02:17:25 yea 2010-05-19T02:17:27 Option 1 -- removal of bylaws replaced by a structure document with the details listed as in option 2 2010-05-19T02:18:07 +1 2010-05-19T02:18:45 gah this is tough 2010-05-19T02:18:57 what if we get hung? 2010-05-19T02:19:05 revote? 2010-05-19T02:19:12 we can always vote on option 2 if this fails or revote 2010-05-19T02:19:16 or they stay as is 2010-05-19T02:19:22 0 for now 2010-05-19T02:19:26 +1 2010-05-19T02:19:30 i know you hate me 2010-05-19T02:19:31 so Option 1 fails 2010-05-19T02:19:47 Option 2 2010-05-19T02:19:51 +1 2010-05-19T02:20:00 -1 2010-05-19T02:20:05 Option 2 - revise the bylaws as detailed -- with the understanding we may need to add additional language for them to be bylaws 2010-05-19T02:20:09 lol 2010-05-19T02:20:11 0 2010-05-19T02:20:15 lol 2010-05-19T02:20:16 option 2 fails 2010-05-19T02:20:28 oh man 2010-05-19T02:20:32 option 3 - leave them as is 2010-05-19T02:20:35 -1 2010-05-19T02:20:37 -1 2010-05-19T02:20:38 -1 2010-05-19T02:20:40 lol 2010-05-19T02:20:46 well we want change 2010-05-19T02:20:48 would anyone like to make any other suggestions? 2010-05-19T02:20:57 just not sure which i guess 2010-05-19T02:21:06 hence the difficulty with having 'bylaws' and formality 2010-05-19T02:21:34 ok well since hal and I disagree the most I suggest we open up for discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of options 1 and 2 2010-05-19T02:21:47 k 2010-05-19T02:21:50 honestly i'm willing to give them up if it means the team is going to benefit from it 2010-05-19T02:22:28 i just wanted to respect the previous efforts 2010-05-19T02:22:58 I think we could do that 2010-05-19T02:23:01 I think we could archive the bylaws as they stand 2010-05-19T02:23:55 I do plan on archiving them... it is important 2010-05-19T02:24:08 I agree we should respect the efforts of past members 2010-05-19T02:24:14 there was a lot of effort that went into exploring the non-profit option and i just think changing the bylaws to the proposed new set respects that 2010-05-19T02:24:52 I agree with that notion hal14450 -- I am just not comfortable with the fact that bylaws carry with them a 'conotation' 2010-05-19T02:25:00 I don't want to restrict us when typing up the new "rules" by using a format that was intended for other purposes 2010-05-19T02:25:02 i'm not keen on keeping the command structure however 2010-05-19T02:25:08 all bylaws I have seen are very formal 2010-05-19T02:25:42 yes... and we need to deal with the 'command structure' after this vote -- assuming a change is made 2010-05-19T02:26:37 i'd prefer a complete rewrite of the bylaws to reflect a decentralized command structure as in removal of certain parts instead of amending 2010-05-19T02:27:08 but if that's not possible i say +1 to option 1 2010-05-19T02:27:21 well... we can not replace the current set then 2010-05-19T02:27:30 and we can spend some more time revising them 2010-05-19T02:27:31 I think we're talking basically the same thing 2010-05-19T02:27:41 i want to put this behind us and focus on the future 2010-05-19T02:27:49 we need to make sure that the new bylaws have all the necessary components of bylaws 2010-05-19T02:27:53 all I see thats different with iption 1 is llsing the current format and creating a new format 2010-05-19T02:28:06 slick6661: basically... 2010-05-19T02:28:10 one is called strucutre 2010-05-19T02:28:14 the other is bylaws 2010-05-19T02:28:28 let's vote again 2010-05-19T02:28:28 except using the word bylaws carried a conotation to some 2010-05-19T02:28:52 option 2 - revised bylaws 2010-05-19T02:28:56 +1/0/-1 2010-05-19T02:28:59 bylaws has a bad connotation in some peoples eyes agreed 2010-05-19T02:29:03 0 2010-05-19T02:29:07 0 2010-05-19T02:29:43 any more votes 2010-05-19T02:29:45 slick6661: 2010-05-19T02:29:53 I'm sorry guys I'm lost on exactly what we're voting on 2010-05-19T02:29:58 option 2 2010-05-19T02:29:59 option 1 or two 2010-05-19T02:29:59 option 2 2010-05-19T02:30:05 -1 2010-05-19T02:30:07 option 2 failed 2010-05-19T02:30:15 Option 1 +1/0/-1 2010-05-19T02:30:16 +1 2010-05-19T02:30:19 +1 2010-05-19T02:30:25 +1 2010-05-19T02:30:33 Option one has been adopted 2010-05-19T02:30:38 Noted 2010-05-19T02:30:45 thanks guys 2010-05-19T02:30:50 please refelect that the bylaws will be replaced by a structure document 2010-05-19T02:30:54 you are welcome hal 2010-05-19T02:31:07 the bylaws will be archived 2010-05-19T02:31:13 now... 2010-05-19T02:31:24 brb bathroom 2010-05-19T02:31:43 I would like to discuss how to transition to the two contacts... 2010-05-19T02:31:46 any ideas? 2010-05-19T02:32:10