This repository has been archived by the owner on May 19, 2023. It is now read-only.
-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
governance.md: Specify Robert's Rules of Order as the default rule set #22
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Katy Huff pointed out that these are the existing rules used by the committee [1]. This commit just makes that explicit. I chose the 1921 edition (linked from the new text), because I wanted the rules to be freely available, and the 1921 edition is out of copyright in the United States (published in the U.S. before 1923 [2]). I'm not sure about global copyright laws, but the U.S. is fairly restrictive, so I expect the 1921 edition is in the public domain in most other countries as well. John Mark Ockerbloom says Mexico recently extended their copyrights to lifetime of the author plus 100 years [3], which would be 2024 (rounding up from May 1923 + 100) for Henry Martyn Robert [4]. Ockerbloom was unsure if that term applied retroactively to older books. The text I added is suggested by Robert on page 268 of the 1923 edition, except that I replaced "society" with "Foundation" to match the rest of our constitution. Among other things, these rules define a quorum for our steering committee (p258): The quorum of a body of delagates, unless the by-laws provide for a smaller quorum, is a majority of the number enrolled as attending the convention, not those appointed. He defines a majority vote (p24): A majority vote when used in these rules means a majority of the legal votes cast, ignoring blanks, at a legal meeting, a quorum being present. And then says that a majority vote is the default (p43): Motions, as a general rule, require for their adoption only a majority vote—that is, a majority of the votes cast, a quorum being present; ... Note that that's a majority of votes cast, not a majority of the members. There is an explicit example for a two-thirds vote on p204: A two-thirds vote means two-thirds of the votes cast, ignoring blanks which should never be counted. This must not be confused with a vote of two-thirds of the members present, or two-thirds of the members, terms sometimes used in by-laws. To illustrate the difference: Suppose 14 members vote on a question in a meeting of a society where 20 are present out of a total membership of 70, a two-thirds vote would be 10; a two-thirds vote of the members present would be 14; and a vote of two-thirds of the members would be 47. Applying that to our seven-member steering committee, the quorum is four members, and a meeting of four members with all members voting can pass both majority and two-thirds votes with three members voting for a motion. [1]: swcarpentry#10 (comment) [2]: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf [3]: http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html#whatpd [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Martyn_Robert
Thank you so much for this @wking ! Our next steering committee meeting is Thursday. Assuming we get to this agenda item, we'll handle this pull request accordingly thereafter. |
@wking ! Thanks so much for this pull request. The Steering Committee appreciates your attention to detail in this matter and are have voted to approve this PR. We are thrilled to officially record our adoption of roberts rules. Thanks. |
katyhuff
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 12, 2015
governance.md: Specify Robert's Rules of Order as the default rule set
wking
added a commit
to wking/board
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 12, 2015
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:54:44PM -0700, Katy Huff wrote [1]: > Suggestion of more concise rephrasing: > > "An early election must be immediately scheduled if (1)the steering > committee passes a motion of no confidence or (2) the Foundation > Membership submits a petition signed by over half of the Foundation > Members." I'm happy dropping "following their usual voting rules" now that [2] has landed upstream with an explicit default to Robert's Rules. I've tweaked Katy's suggested capitalization a bit (keeping only 'Foundation' title-cased). I'm not sure about the purpose of such capitalization. A quick search turned up Kathy Sieckman saying [3]: The Gregg Reference Manual says there is no uniform style for capitalization in legal documents, but common practice is to capitalize key terms such as the parties and the type of document you are working on. She goes on to say: As for other defined terms in legal documents, I personally think it is much clearer if a term is defined and then capitalized throughout... Personally, I think its more readable to stick to the usual non-legal capitalization conventions. I consider 'Software Carpentry Foundation', which I consider a proper name [4]. Maybe folks who read more CamelCase like the extra capitalization more ;). [1]: https://github.com/swcarpentry/board/pull/24/files#r26338054 [2]: swcarpentry#22 [3]: http://proofthatblog.com/2014/02/12/capitalization-in-legal-documents/ [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun#Proper_names
wking
added a commit
to wking/board
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 12, 2015
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:54:44PM -0700, Katy Huff wrote [1]: > Suggestion of more concise rephrasing: > > "An early election must be immediately scheduled if (1)the steering > committee passes a motion of no confidence or (2) the Foundation > Membership submits a petition signed by over half of the Foundation > Members." I'm happy dropping "following their usual voting rules" now that [2] has landed upstream with an explicit default to Robert's Rules. The "steering committe" capitalization Katy references is from an earlier version of my branch (since rebased away). I've updated the capitalization in her suggested text (and the rest of my earlier work) to follow her subsequent suggestion: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:57:12PM -0700, Katy Huff wrote [3]: > - All instances of "committee" or "steering committee" should be > "Steering Committee" I'm not sure about the purpose of such capitalization. A quick search turned up Kathy Sieckman saying [4]: The Gregg Reference Manual says there is no uniform style for capitalization in legal documents, but common practice is to capitalize key terms such as the parties and the type of document you are working on. Kathy goes on to say: As for other defined terms in legal documents, I personally think it is much clearer if a term is defined and then capitalized throughout... Personally, I think its more readable to stick to the usual non-legal capitalization conventions, but both Katy and Kathy agree, so we're going with the legal convention. [1]: https://github.com/swcarpentry/board/pull/24/files#r26338054 [2]: swcarpentry#22 [3]: swcarpentry#24 (comment) [4]: http://proofthatblog.com/2014/02/12/capitalization-in-legal-documents/
wking
added a commit
to wking/board
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 12, 2015
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:54:44PM -0700, Katy Huff wrote [1]: > Suggestion of more concise rephrasing: > > "An early election must be immediately scheduled if (1)the steering > committee passes a motion of no confidence or (2) the Foundation > Membership submits a petition signed by over half of the Foundation > Members." I'm happy dropping "following their usual voting rules" now that [2] has landed upstream with an explicit default to Robert's Rules. The "steering committe" capitalization Katy references is from an earlier version of my branch (since rebased away). I've updated the capitalization in her suggested text (and the rest of my earlier work) to follow her subsequent suggestion: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:57:12PM -0700, Katy Huff wrote [3]: > - All instances of "committee" or "steering committee" should be > "Steering Committee" I'm not sure about the purpose of such capitalization. A quick search turned up Kathy Sieckman saying [4]: The Gregg Reference Manual says there is no uniform style for capitalization in legal documents, but common practice is to capitalize key terms such as the parties and the type of document you are working on. Kathy goes on to say: As for other defined terms in legal documents, I personally think it is much clearer if a term is defined and then capitalized throughout... Personally, I think its more readable to stick to the usual non-legal capitalization conventions, but both Katy and Kathy agree, so we're going with the legal convention. [1]: https://github.com/swcarpentry/board/pull/24/files#r26338054 [2]: swcarpentry#22 [3]: swcarpentry#24 (comment) [4]: http://proofthatblog.com/2014/02/12/capitalization-in-legal-documents/
This was referenced Mar 30, 2015
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Katy Huff pointed out that these are the existing rules used by the
committee 1. This commit just makes that explicit.
I chose the 1921 edition (linked from the new text), because I wanted
the rules to be freely available, and the 1921 edition is out of
copyright in the United States (published in the U.S. before 1923
2). I'm not sure about global copyright laws, but the U.S. is
fairly restrictive, so I expect the 1921 edition is in the public
domain in most other countries as well. John Mark Ockerbloom says
Mexico recently extended their copyrights to lifetime of the author
plus 100 years 3, which would be 2024 (rounding up from May 1923 +
100) for Henry Martyn Robert 4. Ockerbloom was unsure if that term
applied retroactively to older books.
The text I added is suggested by Robert on page 268 of the 1923
edition, except that I replaced "society" with "Foundation" to match
the rest of our constitution.
Among other things, these rules define a quorum for our steering
committee (p258):
The quorum of a body of delagates, unless the by-laws provide for a
smaller quorum, is a majority of the number enrolled as attending
the convention, not those appointed.
He defines a majority vote (p24):
A majority vote when used in these rules means a majority of the
legal votes cast, ignoring blanks, at a legal meeting, a quorum
being present.
And then says that a majority vote is the default (p43):
Motions, as a general rule, require for their adoption only a
majority vote—that is, a majority of the votes cast, a quorum being
present; ...
Note that that's a majority of votes cast, not a majority of the
members. There is an explicit example for a two-thirds vote on p204:
A two-thirds vote means two-thirds of the votes cast, ignoring
blanks which should never be counted. This must not be confused
with a vote of two-thirds of the members present, or two-thirds of
the members, terms sometimes used in by-laws. To illustrate the
difference: Suppose 14 members vote on a question in a meeting of a
society where 20 are present out of a total membership of 70, a
two-thirds vote would be 10; a two-thirds vote of the members
present would be 14; and a vote of two-thirds of the members would
be 47.
Applying that to our seven-member steering committee, the quorum is
four members, and a meeting of four members with all members voting
can pass both majority and two-thirds votes with three members voting
for a motion.