<div dir="ltr"><div>It should be based on those who vote, but all board members should have the opportunity to vote (says 7 days in draft ToR v2).</div><div><br></div><div>If you schedule a meeting for 5 pm, and 5 members show up at 4:45, you don't start the meeting early just because you have enough people to make quorum.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 at 15:54, Alex Leith <<a href="mailto:alexgleith@gmail.com">alexgleith@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hey John<div><br></div><div>I think we have some ambiguity about whether or not voting on these kinds of motions is based on those who vote, or of all board members?</div><div><br></div><div>In the constitution, s 95 says 'a quorum for _board meetings_'... is half or half rounded up in the case of odd numbers.</div><div><br></div><div>I think that the Board can govern appropriately in this case, and if we call these decisions essentially a mini-board meeting, which is suggested by s 91 as you say, then we could say that a quorum is those participating. In the case above 5 of 8 participated, so there was a quorum, in that sense. And out of the quorum, the motion was carried with 4 in agreement and 1 against.</div><div><br></div><div>I agree that we shouldn't just kick this down the road. I'm really not very interested in debating constantly, and I'd prefer to just move forward.</div><div><br></div><div>So my view is that the motion to change the membership policy IS changed.</div><div><br></div><div>Do we have any dissenters or disagreement on my interpretation above?</div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Alex<br><br><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 at 18:30, John Bryant <<a href="mailto:johnwbryant@gmail.com" target="_blank">johnwbryant@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Chiming in as a concerned member of the community. I see some unresolved problems:<br><ul><li>This motion was closed before some directors had a chance to participate, without following due process. Now what? It's left unclear whether this motion has actually passed.</li><li>Supposing the motion is considered to have been carried, it's now suggested that it's not binding, and is handed off to the incoming board for discussion and action, "<i>if actual changes are need to the ToR</i>". Surely, if the explicit purpose of the motion is to change the Membership Policy, and it passes, then the next action is to actually change the Membership Policy?</li></ul>Very confusing. What is the outcome? Is the Membership Policy changed or not?<br><div><br>(Incidentally - in February, the board agreed to use Loomio for decisions outside of board meetings [1], to bring much needed clarity & transparency to decision making. This seems well supported by the constitution (s 91) and these decisions should be considered binding.)<br><br>[1] <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TYAw_zmNEqajzxO1PQwPnpt539CXodby/view" target="_blank">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TYAw_zmNEqajzxO1PQwPnpt539CXodby/view</a></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 16:17, Adam Steer <<a href="mailto:adam.d.steer@gmail.com" target="_blank">adam.d.steer@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>I really want to press upon everybody that we are volunteers, we should not have to be an instantly reactive board (responsive yes, but that is a different approach), and we should avoid prioritising immediate convenience (for some) over good practice.<br><br> In the end the ToR change was not needed, and the vote is questionable. I think it is reasonable to expect that for online votes we need majority of all board members, and also to expect a poll summary to go out via this list. I think using loomio to poll for everything (eg board meetings) is unwieldy.<br><br></div><div>I'm super happy that the MwG could get through all the new memberships!<br></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,<br><br></div><div>Adam<br></div><div><br></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Oceania-Board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Oceania-Board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Oceania-Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Oceania-Board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Oceania-Board@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">Oceania-Board@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Alex Leith<br></div>m: 0419189050</div></div>
</blockquote></div>