The Task Force had unresolved points of debate at the time it presented its proposal to the Working Group. We are inviting Working Group Members to provide feedback on the contested versions of the following sections.
Authorized Task Forces may report to the Working Group using the Approved Communication Methods proposals that are within their authority and related to their desired effects at any time.
Working Group Review: Working Group Members must have at least 7 days to review a Task Force’s proposal. During that time, Working Group Members may debate the proposal, ask for clarification, and offer amendments to any section of the proposal.
Amendment Process: Proposals are open to amendment by Working Group Members from the time they are reported by the Task Forces until they are voted on by the Working Group. Members seeking to amend a proposal must notify Working Group Members of their amendment using the Approved Communication Methods. Once notified of the proposed amendment, members have 3 days to ask for a recorded vote on an amendment; without a request for a recorded vote, the amendment will be considered approved. If a member asks for a recorded vote, members will have 3 days to record their votes, a simple majority of the full Working Group being sufficient to pass an amendment.
Quorum: In the event of a recorded vote, at least half of the Working Group must vote for a vote to be considered valid. If by the end of the voting period the quorum is not met, the Facilitator may choose to extend the voting period or suspend the quorum requirement and validate the results of the vote.
Final Passage: After the minimum review and amendment period, the Facilitator will determine whether all Working Group Members have had an opportunity to express opinions about a proposal and whether agreement has been reached, keeping in mind any deadlines established for consideration of that proposal. If those conditions have been met, the Facilitator will close the amendment period for the proposal. At that time, Working Group Members have 3 days to request a recorded vote on the underlying proposal. If a recorded vote is requested, Working Group Members have 3 additional days to vote on a proposal. If a proposal fails, it will be referred back to the Task Force for a period determined by the Facilitator. If a proposal passes, it will be posted on the Working Group's Wikipedia page and immediately takes effect. In the event of a tied vote, the Facilitator will cast the deciding vote.
Section 1 - Working Group Meetings
The Working Group may consider recommendations and make decisions on Task Force Proposals at regular or special meetings of the Working Group. Working Group meetings must take place in a format that permits members to listen and hear each other and which meet the following additional requirements: (a) a quorum of a majority of the Working Groups members and (b) an agenda and notice of the meeting provided through Approved Communication methods at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
1a - Regular Meetings
Regular meetings of the working group are convened by the Sponsor and Facilitator in response to a request by the Working Group. Such meetings are scheduled with at least 3 weeks notice at a time, place, and communication format arranged by the Sponsor with input from members of the Working Group.
1b - Special Meetings
Members of the Working Group may request special meetings of the Working Group by petition to the Sponsor and Facilitator by 1/3 of the Working Group members along with proposed agenda items. The sponsor will then arrange a special meeting on the proposed agenda topics by voice or video conference, and provide a minimum of 7 days notice for the meeting using Approved Communication Methods.
Section 2 - Working Group Decisions
Working Group decisions may be made by vote of Working Group members in a meeting that meets the requirements established in Section 1 or by unanimous written consent via Approved Communication Methods. Meeting times and agendas should be determined in advance at mutually agreeable times. Resolutions may be made by Working Group members at any meeting on topics connected with the agenda for that meeting. Approval of resolutions will require an affirmative vote by a majority of members present.
From User:DStrassmann via working group discussion list:
Option 1 presumes a written voting process with various time frames for people write in to request votes to avoid decisions passing automatically, and a detailed process for written votes with the authority vesting with the facilitator to decide if members have had sufficient input and if deadlines should be extended.
Option 2 vests authority with the working group to consider and deliberate on decisions in a physical or voice-based discussion format where people can hear and speak with each other to make decisions and come to consensus. Working members have the opportunity to petition for additional telephonic meetings.
Option 1 Pros: Decisions can be made without the need for physical or voice-based meetings Efficient use of resources, time excluded (since written debates can sometimes be more lengthy)
Option 1 Cons: Can be harder to have full participation, people don't always pay attention to alternate points of view; those with a lot of time or time during the open window have greater voice. Not permitted for nonprofits under non profit statutes in most or all US states Substantial power is given to the facilitator over decisions via authority over various decisions
Option 2 Pros: A deliberative process that requires people to take turns speaking, listen to different points of view, and is generally viewed by research as more inclusive and conducive to coming to consensus. Viewed as best decision making practice for nonprofit boards making strategic decisions Decision authority rests with the group charged to make decisions.
Option 2 Cons: Requires planning and organizing of meetings, which even if video or telephonic, require people to find mutually agreeable meeting times.
User:Pjthepiano replied, in part: "I believe that it will be very difficult to schedule a time that works for a quorum of the Working Group to talk on the phone and could add substantial delays to the deliberative process. I think having written debates like this one still allow for the kinds of discussions Version Two seeks while allowing the Working Group to operate on a tight schedule. Another section of the rules encourages Task Forces to use phone or Skype meetings; since they are smaller (usually 3 - 4 people) they are, in my opinion, better suited for phone meetings." -- Manumitany ( talk) 01:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I prefer option 2 in general for the reasons (building consensus, buy-in, etc.) identified by User:DStrassmann. However, I think that our deadline for completing our work as a working group militates **strongly** for a more efficient process. Even simple things so far have been very difficult, in just a task force, to organize to get together to discuss and decide live in-person. I feel that Option 2 needs to be employed for our final recommendation, but as we put the **pieces** of that final recommendation into place, the non-live discussion forum is sufficient.
As a note, on the non-profit rules mentioned, typically corporations (including non-profit corporations/organizations) can choose to alter these requirements in their bylaws. The law establishes a default, but the default can be waived or further restricted by the by-laws. Take Delaware, for example. Here are some subsections from DGCL § 141 which deals with board meetings, among other things:
(g) Unless otherwise restricted by the certificate of incorporation or bylaws, the board of directors of any corporation organized under this chapter may hold its meetings, and have an office or offices, outside of this State.
(i) Unless otherwise restricted by the certificate of incorporation or bylaws, members of the board of directors of any corporation, or any committee designated by the board, may participate in a meeting of such board, or committee by means of conference telephone or other communications equipment by means of which all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other, and participation in a meeting pursuant to this subsection shall constitute presence in person at the meeting.
Note the "unless otherwise restricted..." It's all over the place in corporation codes. Default rules are often more conservative and protective because the people they're protecting are investing money, and the directors who are meeting must fulfill certain fiduciary duties. The working group does not have a fiduciary duty, so we should not feel too concerned about having some slightly more-relaxed procedures. -- Manumitany ( talk) 01:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Reading through Diana's note above, it seems that there is agreement that written discussion, followed by consensus, is the most desirable outcome; these rules are presumably written to address cases where consensus can't be reached. These rules are for the working group, not for the Education Program we are designing, so we are not bound by the legal requirements for non-profits. I can see the advantages of getting together for face-to-face discussion and voice votes for controversial and complex issues, but given we are a temporary group with busy members I don't think that version 2 would improve decision making. Version 1 seems to me to allow everyone to express their opinion. It also does not forbid us from calling more meetings if there is consensus we should do so. Hence I think version 1 is the better option. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 08:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Please use this section to give any general feedback or to ask any questions you may have.
The Task Force had unresolved points of debate at the time it presented its proposal to the Working Group. We are inviting Working Group Members to provide feedback on the contested versions of the following sections.
Authorized Task Forces may report to the Working Group using the Approved Communication Methods proposals that are within their authority and related to their desired effects at any time.
Working Group Review: Working Group Members must have at least 7 days to review a Task Force’s proposal. During that time, Working Group Members may debate the proposal, ask for clarification, and offer amendments to any section of the proposal.
Amendment Process: Proposals are open to amendment by Working Group Members from the time they are reported by the Task Forces until they are voted on by the Working Group. Members seeking to amend a proposal must notify Working Group Members of their amendment using the Approved Communication Methods. Once notified of the proposed amendment, members have 3 days to ask for a recorded vote on an amendment; without a request for a recorded vote, the amendment will be considered approved. If a member asks for a recorded vote, members will have 3 days to record their votes, a simple majority of the full Working Group being sufficient to pass an amendment.
Quorum: In the event of a recorded vote, at least half of the Working Group must vote for a vote to be considered valid. If by the end of the voting period the quorum is not met, the Facilitator may choose to extend the voting period or suspend the quorum requirement and validate the results of the vote.
Final Passage: After the minimum review and amendment period, the Facilitator will determine whether all Working Group Members have had an opportunity to express opinions about a proposal and whether agreement has been reached, keeping in mind any deadlines established for consideration of that proposal. If those conditions have been met, the Facilitator will close the amendment period for the proposal. At that time, Working Group Members have 3 days to request a recorded vote on the underlying proposal. If a recorded vote is requested, Working Group Members have 3 additional days to vote on a proposal. If a proposal fails, it will be referred back to the Task Force for a period determined by the Facilitator. If a proposal passes, it will be posted on the Working Group's Wikipedia page and immediately takes effect. In the event of a tied vote, the Facilitator will cast the deciding vote.
Section 1 - Working Group Meetings
The Working Group may consider recommendations and make decisions on Task Force Proposals at regular or special meetings of the Working Group. Working Group meetings must take place in a format that permits members to listen and hear each other and which meet the following additional requirements: (a) a quorum of a majority of the Working Groups members and (b) an agenda and notice of the meeting provided through Approved Communication methods at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
1a - Regular Meetings
Regular meetings of the working group are convened by the Sponsor and Facilitator in response to a request by the Working Group. Such meetings are scheduled with at least 3 weeks notice at a time, place, and communication format arranged by the Sponsor with input from members of the Working Group.
1b - Special Meetings
Members of the Working Group may request special meetings of the Working Group by petition to the Sponsor and Facilitator by 1/3 of the Working Group members along with proposed agenda items. The sponsor will then arrange a special meeting on the proposed agenda topics by voice or video conference, and provide a minimum of 7 days notice for the meeting using Approved Communication Methods.
Section 2 - Working Group Decisions
Working Group decisions may be made by vote of Working Group members in a meeting that meets the requirements established in Section 1 or by unanimous written consent via Approved Communication Methods. Meeting times and agendas should be determined in advance at mutually agreeable times. Resolutions may be made by Working Group members at any meeting on topics connected with the agenda for that meeting. Approval of resolutions will require an affirmative vote by a majority of members present.
From User:DStrassmann via working group discussion list:
Option 1 presumes a written voting process with various time frames for people write in to request votes to avoid decisions passing automatically, and a detailed process for written votes with the authority vesting with the facilitator to decide if members have had sufficient input and if deadlines should be extended.
Option 2 vests authority with the working group to consider and deliberate on decisions in a physical or voice-based discussion format where people can hear and speak with each other to make decisions and come to consensus. Working members have the opportunity to petition for additional telephonic meetings.
Option 1 Pros: Decisions can be made without the need for physical or voice-based meetings Efficient use of resources, time excluded (since written debates can sometimes be more lengthy)
Option 1 Cons: Can be harder to have full participation, people don't always pay attention to alternate points of view; those with a lot of time or time during the open window have greater voice. Not permitted for nonprofits under non profit statutes in most or all US states Substantial power is given to the facilitator over decisions via authority over various decisions
Option 2 Pros: A deliberative process that requires people to take turns speaking, listen to different points of view, and is generally viewed by research as more inclusive and conducive to coming to consensus. Viewed as best decision making practice for nonprofit boards making strategic decisions Decision authority rests with the group charged to make decisions.
Option 2 Cons: Requires planning and organizing of meetings, which even if video or telephonic, require people to find mutually agreeable meeting times.
User:Pjthepiano replied, in part: "I believe that it will be very difficult to schedule a time that works for a quorum of the Working Group to talk on the phone and could add substantial delays to the deliberative process. I think having written debates like this one still allow for the kinds of discussions Version Two seeks while allowing the Working Group to operate on a tight schedule. Another section of the rules encourages Task Forces to use phone or Skype meetings; since they are smaller (usually 3 - 4 people) they are, in my opinion, better suited for phone meetings." -- Manumitany ( talk) 01:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I prefer option 2 in general for the reasons (building consensus, buy-in, etc.) identified by User:DStrassmann. However, I think that our deadline for completing our work as a working group militates **strongly** for a more efficient process. Even simple things so far have been very difficult, in just a task force, to organize to get together to discuss and decide live in-person. I feel that Option 2 needs to be employed for our final recommendation, but as we put the **pieces** of that final recommendation into place, the non-live discussion forum is sufficient.
As a note, on the non-profit rules mentioned, typically corporations (including non-profit corporations/organizations) can choose to alter these requirements in their bylaws. The law establishes a default, but the default can be waived or further restricted by the by-laws. Take Delaware, for example. Here are some subsections from DGCL § 141 which deals with board meetings, among other things:
(g) Unless otherwise restricted by the certificate of incorporation or bylaws, the board of directors of any corporation organized under this chapter may hold its meetings, and have an office or offices, outside of this State.
(i) Unless otherwise restricted by the certificate of incorporation or bylaws, members of the board of directors of any corporation, or any committee designated by the board, may participate in a meeting of such board, or committee by means of conference telephone or other communications equipment by means of which all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other, and participation in a meeting pursuant to this subsection shall constitute presence in person at the meeting.
Note the "unless otherwise restricted..." It's all over the place in corporation codes. Default rules are often more conservative and protective because the people they're protecting are investing money, and the directors who are meeting must fulfill certain fiduciary duties. The working group does not have a fiduciary duty, so we should not feel too concerned about having some slightly more-relaxed procedures. -- Manumitany ( talk) 01:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Reading through Diana's note above, it seems that there is agreement that written discussion, followed by consensus, is the most desirable outcome; these rules are presumably written to address cases where consensus can't be reached. These rules are for the working group, not for the Education Program we are designing, so we are not bound by the legal requirements for non-profits. I can see the advantages of getting together for face-to-face discussion and voice votes for controversial and complex issues, but given we are a temporary group with busy members I don't think that version 2 would improve decision making. Version 1 seems to me to allow everyone to express their opinion. It also does not forbid us from calling more meetings if there is consensus we should do so. Hence I think version 1 is the better option. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 08:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Please use this section to give any general feedback or to ask any questions you may have.