Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki talk:Proposed bylaws"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(2.4.3 E: "Simplified"/shortened my comments/questions about if Trent is elected by the community, etc.)
(2.4.3 E)
Line 51: Line 51:
 
''"'''all five (5) Trustee''' positions will be vacated and new elections will be held to for the community to fill these spots."''
 
''"'''all five (5) Trustee''' positions will be vacated and new elections will be held to for the community to fill these spots."''
 
:There are not five "Trustee" positions, there are six when you include "Community Founder Trustee". As it is worded now it seems to assume that Trent will not be elected by the community. ~ [[user:Lumenos|Lumenos]] - ([http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/User_talk:Lumenos that other chattery]) 05:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 
:There are not five "Trustee" positions, there are six when you include "Community Founder Trustee". As it is worded now it seems to assume that Trent will not be elected by the community. ~ [[user:Lumenos|Lumenos]] - ([http://lumeniki.referata.com/wiki/User_talk:Lumenos that other chattery]) 05:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
I will not be running for a trustee position. I will have a defacto trustee position as the incorporator until such time that 3 more trustees are elected. There will then be 5 trustees who can opt to allow me to fulfill a 6th trustee position that only I can ever fill. Basically it is a way to give me a presence on the board for the foreseeable future, that gets retired when I no longer want/need such a position, or if its decided by the elected board not to offer it to me. tmtoulouse 05:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:39, 19 July 2010

The original talk page was not moved with this project page.
Lumenous wasting everyone's time is here ħumanUser talk:Human 03:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you know the section was created by SusanG, although perhaps all my "unpopular" questions about majority rule, inspired her to create the section. ~ Lumenaid - ("backup" chattery) 05:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why NM, USA?

Is there a reason why New Mexico is being proposed? IIRC, Rationalwiki is physically located in Trent's flat in Toronto. Wasn't there a legal case against RW, but was thrown out as the case was filed somewhere in the US and there was no restriction. CS Miller (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Trent now lives in NewMex. It was mentioned in the thread/page where the Foundation was first proposed, but I can't find where that is now. Not sure that a legal case has ever actually been filed against the site. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I assumed that it was because Trent was from NM. Stupid drug Phantom! 19:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah. That (Weaseloid) makes a bit more sense. However, a traceroute is still going via Cogeco in Canada. I suppose Trent could still have his flat in Toronto, and is waiting to buy/longterm lease a flat in NM before getting a fixed IP and moving RW. CS Miller (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
"...incorporate most likely in New Mexico where the incorporater has an "intent to return", registered agent, and several physical addresses..." That's the ref. Weasel. 20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Oh yeah. I should probably actually read this page. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It started off in TMT's user space & got relocated - that's why I thought the comment was somewhere else. In fact, there's some previous discussion of the bylaws (but not the New Mexico issue) at User talk:Tmtoulouse/bylaws. Should it be merged onto this talk page? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it should be merged now unless there is a way to merge the edit history. It seems Trent moved the edit history of the project page before deleting the original page. Instead I will try a notification on the top of this page. ~ Lumenaid - ("backup" chattery) 05:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
All this means is that it's under both countries' laws - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, Trent is only going to school in CA. Once his graduate program is up he'll be bringing his mostly useless degree of Science back to the USA! USA! USA! and promoting his atheistic liberal professor values claptrap somewhere here. NM is his pied a terre, so it will be easy for him to do all the paperwork on a trip home. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Indumnification

"...her capacity..."? Shouldn't that be "their"? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The singular they is best avoided, since they is properly a plural & shouldn't really be used to refer to one person in any formal context - especially in a legal document where you want to avoid any possible ambiguity or confusion as to whether you're referring to one Trustee and his/her capacity, or to the Board of Trustees as a group and their capacity. The generic her is sometimes used instead of the more traditional generic he. It should probably be "he or she" & "his or her" in the interests of gender neutrality. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
"The Trustees" is plural. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
But "any Trustee or officer or any former Trustee or officer" is singular. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
But let me add, Nutty knows what he is doing. The edit just confused me a bit, but, yeah, legalese and all. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Voting qualification

It occurs to me that once these bylaws become fact and legally binding, it would be possible for e.g. anonymous or anyone else (there were a couple of f'rinstrances here but I took 'em out) etc to create loads of editors, whether actual or socks, and take over the wiki. Should there be a level of "established Editor" with voting rights? Thoughts? 16:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

The bylaws don't actually set up the rules for the election, but rather leave it up to the board to decide. The initial rules for electing members will be established by the first two appointed members and me. They will likely follow WP standards making eligibility a function of both time on site and number of edits (1 year, 500 edits something like that). Future boards can change that around as they like. Also bylaws themselves can be amended by the board so nothing is set in stone. tmtoulouse 16:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't we need to establish voting criteria for the board in the first instance? Also I would like to see some detailed accounts. I am not comfortable with Trent subsidising RW out of his own pocket, he mentioned that he can only rely on $5 a month as income with the occcasional whip-round for significant outlays. This is not a sound financial foundation. If something happens to him then we should be able to carry on regardless. Currently the hardware is hosted by TMT but what happpens to it if he is no longer in a position to support RW?  Lily Inspirate me. 12:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The initial board will be Trent and two appointees. One of their first actions will be to establish the rules for replacing them. As far as the money/hardware/host issue, this is partly why we are doing this - to free it from Trent a bit. He has also provided several people with access to all the information required to start RW back up on a server anywhere. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I have machinations for trying to create some financial solvency for the site. Currently, the two biggest hurdles for someone else taking over the site are technical and financial. I have a long term plan for where I would like to see us, one year, three years, and ten years down the road. The formation of the foundation is the next step towards the vision I have for the site, and that vision does include finding ways of being financially and technically self-supported. But it takes time to implement. Establishing the foundation will however start to open up the financial situation of the site as the incoming and out going donations and costs will have to be tracked, and reports generated, etc. tmtoulouse 20:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


I removed Lumonous' garbage to a subpage. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That is what I would do at Lumeniki, if I thought something was less important, but calling the page "Lumeniki" is a bit cryptic. Susan's section was entitled "Voting qualification" and I think this would be a more appropriate page name. ~ Lumenaid - ("backup" chattery) 05:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Whoops you're right I cut too much. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Pasted sane people's comments back in. Thanks for catching that, Lummy. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Typo?

At 2.4.3 it says, "(C) [...] The responsibilities of the initially appointed Trustees will be to certify the bylaws and establish criteria and election protocol for selection of an additional three (3) trustees based on sub-section C below. " Shouldn't that say sub-section D of section 2.4.3? ~ Lumenaid - (the anarcho-librarian chattery) 02:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't mean to move that section L. It's hard to tell what it should say, but it should surely be clearer. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

2.4.3 E

Whahuh? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Quoting the part Human referenced: "(E) Community Founder Trustee Position. Beginning after the election of the first community-selected Trustees the Board may appoint Toulouse as Community Founder Trustee for a one-year term. The Board may reappoint Toulouse to the Community Founder Trustee position from year to year to successive one-year terms. In the event that Toulouse is not appointed as Community Founder Trustee, the Community Founder Trustee position will remain vacant, and the Board shall not fill the vacancy." Can Trent also be elected by the community to be "Trustee"? If so, I think he should hold the sixth "Trustee" position of "Community Founder Trustee" or else a number of confusing scenarios are possible because he could hold two offices ("Trustee" and "Community Founder Trustee") simultaneously. ~ Lumenos - (that other chattery) 05:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

2.4.3 D is ambiguous

"all five (5) Trustee positions will be vacated and new elections will be held to for the community to fill these spots."

There are not five "Trustee" positions, there are six when you include "Community Founder Trustee". As it is worded now it seems to assume that Trent will not be elected by the community. ~ Lumenos - (that other chattery) 05:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I will not be running for a trustee position. I will have a defacto trustee position as the incorporator until such time that 3 more trustees are elected. There will then be 5 trustees who can opt to allow me to fulfill a 6th trustee position that only I can ever fill. Basically it is a way to give me a presence on the board for the foreseeable future, that gets retired when I no longer want/need such a position, or if its decided by the elected board not to offer it to me. tmtoulouse 05:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)