[Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes

[Alan Barrett]

> On 12 Nov 2016, at 00:02, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 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?

Sorry, no, that doesn’t work, because the Bylaws have no concept of a PDWG chair or a rough consensus process.  The Bylaws say that there must be a Policy Development Process, but give no details about how it works.  The concept of a PDWG chair or co-chair, and the requirement for (rough) consensus is a construct of the PDP, and can be changed by adopting a new version of the PDP.  It would not be appropriate for the Bylaws to rely on something that can be changed outside the Bylaws.

Alan Barrett