charter

[Mike Prince]

On Fri, 11 Nov 1994, Johan Van Schalkwyk wrote:

> 2. Problems:
> 	2.1 General co-ordinator = dictator?

I'll leave that up to you guys to limit his powers later.  Our voting 
system lets you overrule anything.  (including the General Coordinator).

> 	2.2 How to assess "most seniority"?

I'd propose seniority mean the one who's been a member longest, as 
determined by the membership list.  If that's an OK criterion then we 
should add initiation dates to our membership file.

> 	2.3  Minimum time period between "CALL FOR VOTE" and "Voting Ends"?

I struggled with this one a little bit.  For some things we might have to 
make a quick decision, but for most we could wait a few days.  How about 
a 5 day min with the General Coordinator being able to overrule that?

> 	2.4 Minimum % response of ALL members for vote?

I'd say let's set a minimum number of votes needed, say 5 votes or at 
least 1/2 the members of the affected project, whichever is smaller.

> 	2.5 How "binding" are "decisions" (made by coordinator) as opposed to
> 		"measures" (voted on)? 

Voting takes precedence over all "decisions".  We're a little democracy, 
aren't we?

> 	2.6 Relative status levels of various projects?

I don't get what you mean?

> 	2.7 Who is entitled to vote?

Right now it's a pure democracy, ANYONE can vote.  One modification is to 
have people join projects which would enable them to vote on project issues.

> 	2.8 How do members become members? (Born members, acquire 
> 		membership, have it thrust upon them)?

For now, anyone on the mailing list is a member.  

I'm not saying these don't need to be changed.  If someone feels strong 
enough about any point I suggest you first draft it into a measure and 
post it to get some feedback.  If the feedback is positive, call for a vote!

For right now, I'd like to focus mostly on our goals.  This is the kind 
of boring time when attention deficit syndrome really kicks in, but by 
defining our goals now, it'll pay in spades later when the fun of 
development starts.

> Rule 1.	The First rule.
> 	1.1 No rule shall be accepted that contradicts any other rule.
> 	1.2 In the case where two rules are later found to contradict
> 	one another, the higher number rule immediately becomes void.
> 	1.3. No rule shall have a number < 1.
> 
> 
> Rule 2. Influence.
> 	Project rules shall control all decisions and actions within
> 	that project and SUBPROJECTS, but not affect higher projects.

I like these!

[snipped point counting stuff]

> Okay, okay, just having a little fun!

The point system was amusing in all it's complexity, but it does address 
a good point; certain peoples opinions should carry more weight than 
others based on their contributions.  I don't have a complex point system 
like Johan, but it's something we should keep in the back of our heads to 
implement in some way later.

Mike