XSF Discussion - 2021-07-02

  1. flow

    dwd, EGM?

  2. dwd

    Emergency General Meeting, which is basically any meeting aside from the Annual General Meeting. I think the term probably legally includes the quarterly ones for membership elections.

  3. Ge0rG

    The Quarterly Membership Emergency?

  4. Sam

    I wonder if it's a good idea to let the CoC group call an EGM directly w/o the 10% of membership having to agree on the theory that there are fewer of them and they're not likely to troll and do it for no reason or for some tiny reason that's going to be instantly voted down. That way they can just discuss the issue instead of having to discuss it to convince 10% of people, then discuss it with everybody.

  5. Sam

    This is probably something for a policy document, not the CoC, but it would maybe make their job easier if there ever was some reason for them to need to consider removal of a board member

  6. Kev

    Sam: Mayyyybe, but TBH if they can’t call the 10% for a meeting, they can’t call the 50% votes for the motion.

  7. Kev

    (In practice - I realise it’s theoretically possible)

  8. ralphm

    Also, before this becomes a problem, I'm sure none of it will have stayed indoors and there are other challenges to account for.

  9. Sam

    I'm thinking of cases where they certainly can call the 10%, I'm just also thinking it would make them have to jump threw fewer hoops that weren't designed with them in mind and that it will make it easier to make their case before the membership.

  10. dwd

    As I said in the email, if you've got 5 people on the conduct team and another 5 on board, you've got nearly 20 percent - calling an EGM should be easy.

  11. Sam

    I hadn't actually thought of that; the number is smaller than I would have guessed.

  12. Sam

    Fair enough, maybe it's not a problem.

  13. ralphm

    Additionally, our Chair can call the meeting on his own.

  14. dwd

    Oh, didn't notice that one. Given the Conduct Team, in the current draft, can bounce any decision up to Board, that should firmly cover all cases then.

  15. Kev

    Well, the Chair detail isn’t that relevant for whether it’s ok, I think.

  16. Kev

    It’s a convenient way to save time in most cases, but if we were relying on that we’d be in trouble procedurally because we wouldn’t be able to rely on it if it was the Chair being accused.

  17. Kev

    But fortunately we’re not relying on that, so all is good.

  18. ralphm

    The membership admission meetings are not Special meetings, they are arranged separately in Section 2.1.

  19. Kev

    Well, as good as it can be when trying to work out what to do when things go wrong.

  20. ralphm

    If the Chair is being accused, as I said before, calling the meeting is the least of our problems.

  21. Kev

    I realise this is a hypothetical argument, but I think we should accept that it’s just as possible that a chair ends up being a Bad Person in some way as anyone else.

  22. ralphm

    Agree, if this were to happen right now, and the conduct team is board, you'd need 3 outside of Board to meet the 10% threshold.

  23. ralphm

    (we have 51 members)

  24. ralphm

    (and board has 4 at the moment)

  25. ralphm

    (and it assumes that all board members are members, which is not a requirement)

  26. Sam

    It still feels odd that they'd have to explain the problem to people to try and hit that 10% before the actual meeting. Not a huge problem, it just seems like the 10% thing wasn't designed for a committee.

  27. ralphm

    Well, you can have an affirmative vote outside of meetings, too. Just more involved.

  28. ralphm

    And finally, Section 3.12 lays out that you need only 5% to submit matters to a vote for the next annual or special meeting. If we deem the quarterly member meetings to actually count as special meetings (which seems reasonable), that means that even without calling for a meeting, 5% (3 people currently) is enough.

  29. Sam

    Right. Not as big of a deal as I thought, I'm just saying that it feels weird that they'd have to go tell 3 people about it, convince them, *then* they could get an audience with all of membership to convince them. I mean, I guess they'd just take it straight to the list and do both votes, it just feels like there's less of a point to making them do the first vote to get 10% to call the meeting.

  30. Zash

    If the conduct team is at least 5% / 3 people, can't they do it themselves?

  31. Sam

    Getting 10% is presumably a way to stop a few random members from calling meetings constantly for no reason since there are lots of members. That seems less like a problem here, so maybe it shouldn't apply to the CoC team. Not the end of the world either way.

  32. dwd

    I counted 51 members, was I off?

  33. dwd

    And also, the bylaws do specifically state that once a meeting is called, other items may be added to the agenda, even at the meeting.

  34. dwd

    So yeah, we're a quarterly opportunity to eject The Evil Ones, even if for dive bizarre reason we cannot raise the 5 percent.

  35. dwd

    It's much harder, mind, to raise enough votes to remove someone - two thirds majority is a hard ask.

  36. ralphm

    Definitely. And I also counted 51. Where is the confusion, dwd?

  37. dwd

    Oh sorry, I was confused by which percentage we were talking about.

  38. Ge0rG

    do we have a document describing when to mark a chat as "read" based on stanzas from a different client?

  39. Kev

    It’s on my never-ending TODO list to write up a spec for cross-device read-sync.

  40. Kev

    Obviously I’ve not done it, because TODO list.

  41. Ge0rG

    I vaguely remember chat markers and read states.

  42. Ge0rG

    or was it read markers and chat states? but only some of them?

  43. Kev

    I’d rather do it as a distinct thing with its own semantics, really.