[OOTB-hive] [GOV] Draft by-laws

Fernando González fegor at fegor.com
Wed Sep 3 14:17:19 BST 2014

Hi guys!

I think it's very positive manage the organization of bees.

Regarding the voting members (engineers / programmers) of Alfresco Inc. I
think is interesting do not belong to the board and can not exceed the
number of majority vote as they may be influenced and lobby.


Fernando González Ruano

skype: fegorama
twitter: @fegorama

twitter: https://twitter.com/fegorama
facebook: http://tinyurl.com/ok2wko6

Raubenohran, npnonf qr qrfphoeve ry zrafnwr hfnaqb ry nytbevgzb EBG13, rerf
yn pnñn qr Rfcnñn... nuben cbagr n genonwne qr ireqnq ;)

2014-09-03 14:34 GMT+02:00 Oksana Kurysheva <okurysheva at gmail.com>:

> Several comments from my side:
> > Who can join
> At this moment not anyone can join. We have 1 requirement: a person should
> do something for the community: developed a free add-on, write a helpful
> post about Alfresco, organize a meet-up or speak on Alfresco Summit. We
> don't want to see 100 new members from one company who just want to seize a
> power by voting to the points they are interested in.
> > Board
> How does Board relates to committees? Board coordinates the activities,
> but Committees work on activities, and Chair is responsible for their
> actions. There is the link?
> > Board Elections
> 2 years is a very big period of time. What about half of a year? Or a year
> as a maximum?
> > Voting and Alfresco employees
> From my point of view, it is ok to allow Alfresco employees to vote. We
> will not approve requests to join the Order from someone from the Sales
> team, as far as they don't contribute to community. And I believe in sober
> assessment of the situation from the technical people. The only restriction
> I see here is that Alfresco employees cannot become Board Members.
> > Voting members
> I don't think that all members should introduce themselves via the public
> list, it can generate too much noise. As for now, (almost) all new members
> filled information about themselves while sending request to join. If they
> didn't mention any contribution, I asked them for a list of contributions
> via email, and didn't add them to the website before they reply. Using this
> schema some people have not been added as a members, but they will follow
> us in social networks until they make some contributions. Everyone
> understands and like the idea of "contributions as a requirement to join".
> One more idea about Board Election. Maybe it's crazy and we should not
> follow it:
> We elect 5 independent members that should communicate a lot with each
> other and collaborate in many activities. Together they should cover all
> our activities and committees. I afraid of the situation when all members
> will be specialists in the same area.
> Sample:
> If there are 6 candidates:
> 4 of them work on add-ons
> 1 - for Gov committee and
> 1 - for events organization
> Many members like add-ons, so 4 members from the Add-ons committee will be
> elected easily. And let's imagine that voting members chose 1 candidate
> from Gov as fifth Board Member. After that we don't have any control in
> coordination on meetups and conferences, because all Board members are not
> interested in this topic.
> What about electing a full Board (team of 5 people)? Campaigning phase can
> be a time then nominates tell not only about their activities and who are
> they, but also how can they coordinate with each other and how will they
> work as a Board? So we should vote not for 1 person, but for the team of 5
> people. One person can be a member of several candidate teams.
> Another way to solve this issue is to create roles in the Board. Like: 1
> person should be responsible for new activities and committees, 1 person -
> for technical aspects of our add-ons and Honeycomb, 1 - for marketing and
> events, other 2 can be elected as independent.
> Any comments?
> Oksana
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Jan Pfitzner <jan at alfrescian.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> first of all: thanks Jeff for writing this down.
>> From my point of view, it is OK to allow Alfresco employees to vote. But,
>> this also opens a way for Alfresco Inc. to undermine the OOTB. As long we
>> are talking about Alfresco Engineers (& Richard ;-)) I'm sure that they
>> will respect & support our vision. I wouldn't say the same about general
>> management, sales ...
>> Jan
>> 2014-09-03 7:17 GMT+02:00 Richard Esplin <richard.esplin at alfresco.com>:
>> I really like the draft of by-laws.
>>> However, I am still concerned by the restriction that prevents employees
>>> of
>>> Alfresco from voting.
>>> I understand the concern about independence, but I also think it is de-
>>> motivating that an Alfresco employee could contribute to the Order and
>>> not be
>>> able to participate on decisions involving their efforts.
>>> So I propose a compromise.
>>> Alfresco employees would vote in their committees, but not in a general
>>> membership vote. I think anyone actively contributing on a committee
>>> should be
>>> treated equally with other members of the committee. But if a committee
>>> issue
>>> is impactful enough or divisive enough to require a broad membership
>>> vote,
>>> then Alfresco employees would not participate in that vote.
>>> This would require removing "committe vote" from the first sentence in
>>> the
>>> section on "Voting Members". The section on "Non-Voting Members" would
>>> need an
>>> additional sentence like "Non-Voting Members who are members of
>>> committees may
>>> vote equally with other members of their committees on subjects
>>> restricted to
>>> the affairs of those committees of which they are a member, but are not
>>> counted
>>> in general votes."
>>> Does this address everyone's concerns?
>>> Richard
>>> On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 23:10:39 Jeff Potts wrote:
>>> > Hi Bees,
>>> >
>>> > I've drafted a rough set of by-laws. I am trying to keep it short--it
>>> is
>>> > primarily focused on how we are organized, how board elections work,
>>> how
>>> > voting works, and voting eligibility.
>>> >
>>> > https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/gov/blob/master/bylaws.md
>>> >
>>> > A lot of it is repeat from my original "organizing ourselves" email
>>> with
>>> > some feedback from that thread folded in (a longer voting period, for
>>> > example).
>>> >
>>> > The document is purposefully free of mission/vision/strategy
>>> statements,
>>> > specific committee names, or anything that needs to be fungible.
>>> >
>>> > I'll give everyone some time to digest this and suggest feedback, then
>>> when
>>> > it seems like we're close to something we can agree on we'll put it to
>>> a
>>> > formal vote.
>>> >
>>> > I would like to have these ratified before Alfresco Summit so if you
>>> have
>>> > feedback, don't sit on it.
>>> >
>>> > Jeff
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OOTB-hive mailing list
>>> OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net
>>> http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive
>> _______________________________________________
>> OOTB-hive mailing list
>> OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net
>> http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive
> --
> С уважением,
> Оксана Курышева
> <okurysheva at gmail.com>
> _______________________________________________
> OOTB-hive mailing list
> OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net
> http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.xtreamlab.net/pipermail/ootb-hive/attachments/20140903/77a608d9/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the OOTB-hive mailing list