Mendalla won't be around much longer, either. Birthday dinner coming up soon.

Mendalla

The community nominates individuals for positions
The council reviews nominees and based upon that review , presents a slate
The community votes to affirm ( or turn down) the slate

If turned down, the council would need to review the slate.

I am now on the ferry, at some point I will lose all connectivity

Mendella, enjoy your special dinner

From my reading so far - I think the opening paragraph re Nominations is perhaps confusing - 

"To form Council, the community is asked for nominations.  After a suitable nomination period of not less than 5 days, the nominations are closed and Council selects new members from the nominations."

Perhaps some distinction needs to made indicating how the initial Council will be selected & by whom, and making this distinct from the on-going process?   It's confusing to me as it reads "to form Council" then later "Council selects" - giving rise to the question 'what council is doing the selecting, if it is not yet formed?'  

Personally, I think the current WC2 admins would be well positioned to make initial selections, based on nominations from the community & thier understanding of the needs of the site & I would trust their decision.  Establishing strong, focused, and committed leadership in the initial Council is crucial, in my opinion.

I will look at a few bylaws of community based not for profits to come up with a proposal.

Re voting: 

"Any change to the formative documents of Wondercafe2 must be approved by 7 of the 9 members of Council and an 80% majority vote of the community."

I suggest that wording change to "80% majority of votes cast by the community" - for improved specificity. Otherwise, it may possibly be argued (not that anyone here likes to argue or split hairs LOL!) that 80% of the community must vote. 

Carolla, thanks for vote of confidence. In the initial selection, your current admins intent is to select the council. In essence, we are currently acting as the new sites council.

I see your point re that opening bit. It may be better to have something like " the process of forming council is a series of steps, first, the community.....

Thank you carolla, that's something I asked about too. Hopefully you will be blessed with an answer.

Another good point re 80% of cast votes.

I trust that you admins will be asking the community to vote on the slate you have selected.

Yup

To reiterate, the first part is confirmation of this document, if it stands then there would be a call for nominations. While they are being reviewed and contacted to ensure they would accept, etc, them, we can work on the code of conduct.
Then the slate would come forward

Well, at least there's that. I still think voting on a slate is an inferior system to voting on individuals.

Ps, timeline is really important as we cannot go live without the moderators being in place and testing both process and tools

So we only nominate one person for each of the 3 positions (in the case of moderator(s) understand there will need to be more than one moderator to represent different time zones)?

No, we nominate for five moderator positions, and one treasurer position. The now-existing admins get to remain the admins because... er... because... I guess because they have no intent of surrendering those roles.

I think it looks good. A lot of effort went into it. I am not sure if this would be the right document to mention that anyway. Sorry. I tend to find polity confusing- left brain stuff. I'm going to have to read it a few times. Lol. Does anyone have one a flow chart/ mind map program to put it into visuals (if it's easy to do)?

Nominations can come forward for admins, moderators or treasurer in my opinion. You may wish to nominate any of the existing admins for moderators or treasurer

Having said that it would be foolish of the existing admins to step aside given how new the site is.

The other point that I would like to make is that the three of us could have stood up the site with the three of us running and financially underwriting the forums. We have taken on the extra work of ensuring the ground work is in place for it to be community driven as we value the community and believe it is important.

Kimmo, I would recommend you pick one person and nominate them. If you feel after others have nominated key skills or people are not covered then, nominate another person. Then again we aren"t in the mination process yet

I understand that the existing admins are needed as the site is new and they have built it, if they stepped aside right now there'd be no site, and they did open it up to community involvement in the process when they didn't have to. I appreciate that a lot of work went into it. Work that I don't have the technical skills for.

Thanks Pinga, that's clearer. As for the whole process- I might be wrong but I think George has one of those fancy mind map/ flow chart programs he's used to demonstrate ideas before. It can help one understand the details of legalese/ polity better if visualized. For me at least. If I read it over some more and let it sink in I'll get it- but not everyone belonging to the site would necessarily understand because we all have strengths and weaknesses. I don't like signing on the dotted line for things I'm not sure about. Maybe sometime in the future things like visuals could be included as an augmentation to technically wordy documents.

I still don't understand UCCan polity and process well after a couple of years- there are so many committees I get lost in the details.

thanks for responding.

It is well done and I do appreciate the time that went into it!

Hi All,

Regarding the slate of candidates.

Because we need to actually start somewhere I have no problem electing a slate this time around.

In subsequent votes the membership would reserve the right to ask for one or several candidates to be lifted from the slate and voted on seperately.

Since the terms of office are limited to one year we will be having these votes on a regular basis.

At present we operate more or less as equals.  I have no more privilege here than any other.  Once Wondercafe2 opens several will suddenly have more privilege and responsibility than they did the day before.

Since there is a strong undercurrent of suspicion at WonderCafe.ca it is not surprising that folk will be apprehensive when called upon to name folk or vote for folk who will suddenly have the ability to hold them accountable.

To be blunt this is where the reputations we have made for ourselves prove sea-worthy or not.  There really is no way around it.  One way or another chickens will come home to roost.

Bearing in mind that few of us ever have a second chance to create a first impression we can take steps to correct impressions we aren't particularly fond of.

If ever there was a time to tread lightly.  It is probably now.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Shouldn't there be more information given regarding the role of the Treasurer. I don't see anything given regarding such issues as drawing up and presenting budgets, filing whatever tax statements are needed to go in, banking, etc.

Jae, we have previously voted on the role and responsbilities of the treasurer.

Hi Dcn,Jae,

This is a pretty low blow.

Remind me who stepped forward to take the responsibility in the first place and was ignored.  I don't have any recollection of that happening.

And the wisdom of letting three people build a a forum from scratch to turn it over to folk who have no technical expertise in that area or background in the set-up might be considered democratic if it wasn't colossally stupid.

Terms of office for all positions are reviewed annually you'll get an opportunity to put the screws to whatever nemesii you create.  Of course, if you aspire to leadership you might want to try not shooting yourself in the foot quite so much.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Where did you read that the membership could do that, John? I like that I idea, but I don't recall it being put forward by the future admins.

Yes, now is the time, I agree, for anyone with any desire to serve on the Council to encourage others to see them in a good light. Not everyone here, of course, feels that desire to so serve. For example, I don't really. Certainly not at this time. Still, reputation is a valuable thing and I reckon we all should strive to maintain or obtain a good one. Rich blessings.

We did *blinks* I don't recall. When was that?

Low blow? No. As I understand it, we nominate new people when there are vacancies on the Council. At this present time, there are no vacancies for the position of admin, since all the current admins desire to keep their posts. That's all. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. Peace.

Hi Dcn.Jae,

It is standard procedure to most rules of order.  I am presuming that for meetings we will strive to follow some agreed upon rules of order rather than making things up on the fly.

For good or ill you and I already have reputations here.  If it is a good one maintaining it is wisdom and there is little left to obtain.  If it isn't a good one only the foolish would strive to maintain it and they won't obtain better by repeating all the mistakes of the past.

Grace and peace to you.

John.  

Well said brother.

Hi Dcn.Jae,

Definitely a low blow.  A cheap shot.

And not your first at this group of volunteers.

This from the proposal:

As Chair of a corporation whenever a slate of officers is presented it must be a slate of all officers (not simply ones designated to fill a vacancy).  And then rules of order kick in.  The membership has the right to lift individuals from the slate

So . . .

Person X may not intend to vacate their position yet when they are brought forward as part of the slate Person Y can ask to have their name lifted from the slate and voted on individually.

If Person X is lifted from the slate and fails to win support there is now a vacancy and nominations reopens.

It will be an extremely cumbersome process to complete virtually.  So I suspect that most motions to lift members from slates will fail.

Grace and peace to you.

John

revjohn, that is not how we saw the process happening.

You voted for the whole slate , accept or not.  If not, it goes back to the council for review and decisions.

The problem that I have with teh scenario that you have presented, and one that we discussed as an admin team, was the possibility of a mass membership join say the week before a vote.  A vritual group is significantly different than a church board or a corporations board.

In the scenario you present that would allow a virtual attack to basically turn down each member of the council.

Unless we determine that individuals must be in good standing to vote, I think the scenario that you present sets the site up for real issues.  For us to determine membershp in good standing is a challenge unless we seriously up our voting and overhead of membership

No. I reject your claim. No low blow, no cheap shot.

Things of the past are now in the past. I have apologized for negative comments I have made and my apology has been accepted.

I pray for the peace of this virtual community.

Hi Pinga,

Respectfully I think that issues are being confused.

A slate of candidates vs individual nominations is simply a process issue.  How officers are voted into an office.  There may be a preference for one form over the other.  Rigidity of form defeats any attempt at transparency.

Eligibility for office and nominations of individuals is a separate matter.

In theory that would be a possibility.  It would have to be done transparently and I would imagine that if we continued to use survey monkey we'd need to be more diligent about access to any vote.

If the eligibility criteria permits a mass membership enlistment as soon as nominations are called then the eligibility criteria need to be reviewed.

Again, I think you are confusing the issue of who votes and how we vote.

Who votes is answered by eligibility which I have not commented on.

How we vote is a matter of process and at most basic we vote for officers by a slate or as individuals.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Dcn.Jae,

That is your right.

I remain unconvinced which is my right.

Everyone else will judge for themselves.

Apology is not repentence.  

Apology for past action does not innoculate anyone against repetition of past mistakes.

You have apologized and it was accepted.  You never claimed to have been transformed to a point that future apology would never be necessary.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Revjohn, the basic process is the council calls for nominations to fill a vacancy, they are presented, and from that list the council fills any vacancy . The council then presents the full.

There is no provision for someone to say I want person Y voted in seperately.

This type of individual selection was intentionally not included.

If the majority of the community does not like the group the council presented then the council will work together to review and present full slate.

Having someone say, i want person A pulled, and an argument/ discussion and vote, then the same person do person b or c will just drive discord.

I would rather see no vote, than that scenario

• “Active” is defined as posting regularly, being involved in community activities, contributing in kind or financially, or other activities related to the community.

• “Continuous” is defined as having taken no voluntary breaks of longer than a month and having received no suspensions under the Code of Conduct during the 12 months preceding their nomination.

There are significant issues with these definitions.  As in real life, people take breaks.  Perhaps people read and do not post in virtual communities.  That does not mean that they are inactive.

And why is there a financial commitment ?  On many threads, it was explained to me that fundraising was not important, that WC2 would not cost much, and that expenses would easily be covered.... by those who created it.  Now it appears that this endeavour will be more costly, and to be an active member, down the line, will require a membership fee.  Please, correct me if I misunderstand the "Active" definition.

"Continuous"  rolls out as forced posting, just to maintain membership.

Not at all in the spirit of WC.

As indicated, the first was Or. Financial commitment is not a requirement

Active participation must be visible. At this time it is through posting. Moderation and admins are by definition required to be active

If someone has been sick or has needed to take leave for significant personal reasons but was active prior- could this be accommodated on a case by case basis- as to eligibility?

so these definitions do not apply to members?

Discussing the definition of "Continuous" would be beneficial to those who migrate to to WC2.

Understanding how one is defined as a member, and what rules must be followed to be a member in good standing.

It appears that  there are more rules than WC.  Interesting.

redhead, there is one much tougher rule in the current site.  You must be an employee hired by the GC and have admin/ moderator in your job description.  That would imply you were currently working.  Please remember what we are referring to here is the replacement of Aaron/Admin1/Admin2 (who were moderators), and the techs behind the scene, and the financial team of GC

Kimmio, the continuous is for the previous 12 months.  If an individual is unable to accomodate that, then they should be able to wait for a year that they have been active and can reasonably presume they will be able to fulfill their role in the next 12 months

They apply to members wishing to be members of council

A scenario: someone has been off on a serious leave for 14 months and has not posted publically because they wanted privacy- but has stayed in touch with members of the community from time to time. Prior to the 14 months the person was active with several posts per week. They become well just as a vacancy comes up and someone needs to be nominated- they have the time, willingness and skills to volunteer- could their individual circumstances be considered? Is there any flexibility in accommodating case by case in special circumstances?

No.   The person must have been in continuous presence in the space (or through one of the other methods).  I would recommend that person be active in the site for a year, and then put their name forward.

Editted to remove: "in my opinion" as, the recommendation is clear about active and continuous.

We will lose some great potential moderators because of this ruling; however, it is hoped they will return in wondecafe2.   

Some individuals have been active in wondercafe's facebook site, attempting the replacement for wondercafe2 as recommended by the GC.  

I disagree with that. Especially if they are a known and well liked presence in the community who are willing to give their time in the spirit of the community. Not that it is going to happen- but could happen. Or other matters which require some room for flexibility. Just wondering why not.

So WC2  copied, in many ways, WC.

Volunteer vs employed.  Not so different.

Someone still owns the site and controls membership.  Chansen owns the domain?

And Wc2 has posted its hierarchy.

Based on the defintions of Active and Continuous, WC2 is far

more restrictive than WC. 

How did these definitions come about?

How is someone's posting activity indicative of membership?

Why mention inkind or financial contribution in the definition of active, if no financial contribution is required to be a member?

Direct and tansparent replies are appreciated.

So if they have not been on Facebook either (which many current WC members are not either and so they are not known in the context of this community) then no? Alright.