board77

There has been visible frustration over the suspension of the invite process. At the time this was done, the idea was that we would revisit the issue on April 1, on the assumption that much of the constitution work would be done by then. As it turns out, that was not a realistic expectation--everyone is working hard, but the job is complicated.

This poll is to ask whether, as a temporary measure, we should restart the invite process. The idea would be to use the rules formerly in place, but to limit the number of new threads per day or per week, so the board is not overwhelmed.

Please note that this would be a temporary measure and has nothing to do with the issue of opening the board. This poll doesn't ask you to choose between being open and staying invitation-only forever; it asks you to choose between (1) staying completely closed until the constitution is finished and ratified, and (2) allowing some invitations until then.

Please vote!

A question:

How would we coordinate the voting for the constitution? Would we want to give those new members the opportunity to vote on it even though they haven't been around for much of the debates? Or would we not include them which could possibly anger them and lead to feelings of not being a full-member?

I'd like to get new people in here, but who votes for the constitution and how to handle that is a fairly big snag IMO.

Perhaps we could allow anyone to vote who was a member at the beginning of the board-wide discussion period leading up to the vote. Someone who came in halfway through the discussion couldn't reasonably expect to be allowed to vote.

Of course, the complication of this would be that we could not do a poll vote, because some members would be ineligible voters.

It would be up to admins to send out ballots by email and either count them up or forward them to Jn.

Or simply accept all emailed ballots and eliminate the ones from ineligible voters.

So no anonymity for the voting? No, probably wouldn't need it.

Just thought about something...I was really hoping we'd never have to do another invite thread. Even if we started up invites today it would still be nearly two weeks before anyone got it. I'm assuming we'd be using the same procedure? It's just so long and tedious..I can't help but lean towards finishing the constitution and then opening up. It's so much easier that way.

I'm still undecided though since I see pros and cons!

I'm trying to think how we could both allow anonymous voting and verify eligilibity. We could create a forum just for voting and give privileges only to the eligible voters, then post a poll in there, but that might be difficult (I don't know--I've never done it).

Well, I much prefer to suspend invitations until the constitution is done ... or at least until a larger part of it is done and has been ratified by the members.

But if the majority here votes to re-open invitations, I don't see any reason why the new members should not be allowed to vote in the ratification of the constitution. As members they'll have to live under the constitution.

It's true that we picked the membership as of March 12 for purposes of establishing a quorum ... which means that if new members really vote it will be that much easier to reach a quorum. But I don't see this as posing any particular problem.

People can't vote on things that happened before they were here, but they can vote on whatever follows.

If a new member expressed a strong interest in being on the committee, I wouldn't mind opening that up either ... though not instantaneously ... perhaps when we get to a convenient breaking point, like the end of a particular article, or after the first batch of articles goes to the members for ratification.

Jn

Um, I think I am a bit naive but why can't newer people be eligible to vote? Won't all the pertinent threads leading up to the constitution stuff be avalable to read?

Could we streamline the invite process, as was suggested earlier in the convention and here? Reduce votes to requests for vetoes, basically, instead of debating the finer points of everyone's characters? That would avoid a lot of the problem...

Wilma, there will be a formal discussion process before the vote. It seems to me that people voting should be on the board for that whole time so they see everything that's said. Yes, threads are available, but it can be an overwhelming amount of reading, more I think than most new board members would care to undertake.

Jn, I'm really not trying to induce chaos or increase pressure on the committee. But people have been asking about invites because of the April 1 date, which has come and gone, and I think it's fair to revisit the issue as promised.

Edit: Ax, the advantage of the old process is that it's approved and in place and people understand it. Changing it would mean another discussion and vote. And we're talking about a temporary situation; we will, I hope, be completely open soon after the constitution is ratified.

Wilma wrote:

Um, I think I am a bit naive but why can't newer people be eligible to vote? Won't all the pertinent threads leading up to the constitution stuff be avalable to read?

The only part I'd have a problem with new people voting on is the admin stuff....especially who can be an admin. It would be in their best interest to say no to the longer waiting period.

Just out of curiousity, exactly how far along are we with the consitution? I've looked at this thread:

http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... um=board77

Is that all there will be...the stuff contained in the first two posts?

As for the invite process, while the old one is long and tedious I really don't want to go through another vote of how to do invites. We've had too many of those and it's ultimately a waste of our time considering we want to be an open board.

Yes to the invites.
Big no to restricting voting.

Who would decide what the limit is? An idea: we pick a set number (say, three per day) and do a random raffle to put up invites for people in the "Who we want to invite" thread.

Either that, or Ax's (I think) suggestiong of one invite per member, though that could potentially add 100+ new members which might be more then admin wants.

Prim: ... I think it's fair to revisit the issue as promised.

Yes, I agree. We said April 1 and we should stick to our schedule.

Eru: We haven't even scratched the surface of the constitution. We're still filling in the gaps in everything that was partially decided by the membership before the committee was convened, and we're less than halfway through that.

What's taking so long is that people disagree about things. I could possibly force the process by pushing things to a vote without so much discussion, but I don't think it would win us anything in the long run because the disagreement within the convention is probably representative of the disagreement that would take place among the members. We'd end up with a faster constitution that wouldn't be ratified and we'd have to do too many things over again.

As far as opening the Invite Process, what I would really like to see happen is to open it again after we've got through the Articles on Admins and on Dispute Resolution. The reason being that those articles allow us to put a governance structure in place. Right now the admins are 'making it up as they go along' and I don't think it's good for the board to keep getting larger under that circumstance. But that's just imo.

As for restricting the number of invites ... as Yov pointed out, you have to do this by day or by week, not by member. A restriction by member is no restriction at all because the number of members is constantly growing.

Jn

Jn, I think your middle ground is a good idea, and if the membership goes for reopening invitations, I'd urge getting that much procedure in place first. At this point there is simply no agreed-upon way to do much of anything, and it's more than a bit bewildering.

What Wilma said!

Jnyusa wrote:

We haven't even scratched the surface of the constitution. We're still filling in the gaps in everything that was partially decided by the membership before the committee was convened, and we're less than halfway through that.

Sounds like it could be two more months before this is done. I say, let's open up invitations. Would it be easier to do one huge lump per week than to do 2 or 3 a day? When they dribble in, I have trouble remembering whom I've reviewed already.

I count 70 names in the "List of People We May Someday Invite". Let's just list all of them at once. I really think it would be less painful to do it that way, especially if we divide up the work.

Each individual invite should say:

__________ is invited to join B77, please comment, and when voting opens on April _, please vote. All votes will end, and all individual invite threads will be locked and hidden at midnite, ___ zulu time, April ___.

We do not have an email or IM contact for this person. If you have one, post the fact that you have one (but not the email or IM itself) in this thread, if no one has done so already. Then email the information to Helper #1.

We do not yet have a sponsor for this person. If you would like to sponser him/her/it, say so in this thread, if no one else has done so already. Email your email address to Helper #1.

All of these invite threads could be started by Helper #2, with lots of copying and pasting, only changing the name and the title. (Two hours)At the end of the voting time, Admin A will lock and hide all of these individual threads, and the "List of People ... " thread (2 hours). Just before they are hidden, Helper #3 will make a list of all the "pass" votes, and post it in a "Results" thread. (The "fail" or "veto" voted invitees will be listed in the first post of the "Who we have voted for already" thread by Admin A (1/2 hour). Helper #1 will, using the results list and the emails acquired, send each sponsor his/her invitee's email address with the request to do the invitation (or polite rejection) letter, with the caution that it may take a few days to activate (2 hours, as the form letter will vary only by names and emails). Once the invitee has been contacted and has replied to the sponsor, the sponsor will post the results of the contact in the Results thread (yes, no, maybe later, etc.). The invitees will dribble in, and will have to be activated one by one by Admin A.

As I'm sure you all know, I'm desperate to start letting people in. I don't want to see this board stagnate and I've left a lot of good friends behind on TORC. Therefore I would like to volunteer myself for anything I could possibly do to help.

I'm really grateful to see people talking about this seriously. I know you don't need any more work right now.

*~Pips~*

I feel I am biased, as I don't have friends who are wanting to join b77, and because I'm inclined to agree with everything Jnyusa says.

I'll hold off a little longer on voting.

I'm kinda with Cerin, the friends I have on TORC are happy there and probably wouldn't care for it here anyways so thats not a factor for me.

I would like to see invites opened back up but Jyn has some pretty good reasons for not doing so just yet, and waiting to just open the board after the constitution is in place

No.