[Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes

[Owen DeLong]

> On Nov 10, 2016, at 23:55 , Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 10 Nov 2016, at 02:22, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> I believe that such policies should not be subject to the usual rough-consensus requirement.  In cases where the community is deadlocked and unable to reach consensus, I believe that it should be possible for the Board to mke a decision that clears the deadlock.  I suggest that only the Members should be able to overturn such a Board decision, by a vote with two-thirds supermajority.
>> 
>> I think there is an alternative that is better…
>> 
>> In the normal process, consensus of the community is required to enact the policy.
>> 
>> In the process where the board has found it necessary to place policy in effect to be reviewed by the community, I believe that a default of “Policy stands as board implemented” with a requirement for consensus to reverse the board decision is a perfectly adequate solution.
>> 
>> In this way, if the community deadlocks, the board action stands. Only if there is consensus can the board be reversed.
>> 
>> This still leaves the policy development completely in the hands of the stakeholders.
>> 
>> IMHO, this is less likely to deadlock than your proposal where it is possible that the membership would oppose the board action by some narrow margin, but the community overall may support it.
>> 
>> Does that make sense, or am I misunderstanding the intent here?
> 
> I am having difficulty drafting appropriate text.  One of the difficulties is that the rough consensus requirement is in the PDP, not in the Bylaws.
> 
> My current feeling is that the Bylaws should be silent about how the community endorses or rejects a policy, but should say what heppens is a policy is rejected (not endorsed).  Here’s suggested text:
> 
> 11.5	Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board:
> (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement or rejection at the next public policy meeting.
> (b) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following its non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid.

How about this:

11.5	Ratification of policy adopted by the Board:
(a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for ratification at the next public policy meeting.
(c) Unless the PDWG chairs determine that there is consensus by the community to reject said policy, the policy shall remain in force or be put in force as directed by the Board.

Would that work?

Owen