Form a team to edit our constitution to something more coherent

In addition to this, we can also create a document that outlines norms for collaborating with other organizations, as @praveenarimbrathod has proposed in another thread. Rather than get them to agree to our constitution - which really is not their headache, we can create a document that outlines what kind of organizations we are seeking to collaborate with, and what is the bare minimum agreement we require from them in order for the collaboration to go through.

For example, our membership procedures may not be relevant to non-member organization, however we would probably want to require that organizations committed to collaborating would regularly update us on any information they make public - including research, protests, proposals to the government, etc. We could want to require that organizations we collaborate with are not engaged in undermining rights of locals anywhere in the country - or collaborating with those doing so. I don't know - these are just examples of what seems more appropriate for an agreement on collaboration than requiring them to agree with what isn't their business. A team could be formed to create such a document with guidelines for members and a small bullet point list that must be shared with the target organization and their agreement obtained.

@vidyut this thread itself can function as a team. Those interested in cleaning up will contribute edits. But if we need a team, we can create a sub group as well.

Another addition I recommend to the membership rules for voting members is making it mandatory for voting (permanent) members to vote on at least 50% of issues put to vote - failing that, their membership should revert back to regular till they become active again. And 90% of all issues put to vote pertaining to constitution.

In turn, amendments to the constitution should require at least a 75% vote or better.

In turn, non urgent issues should be given generous time frames as far as possible (between two weeks and a month?)

I propose this, because I assume that issues put to the vote to make final will require serious decisions and simply going by majority votes at the time of closing does not cut it when an edit to the constitution could be made on the basis of 3 upvotes or something. That will not reflect the views of us as a whole. It also puts us at risk of vote rigging once our membership grows, where an issue is put to vote for a shortish duration and those in favor make sure to vote and get it passed, while complacent regulars ignore notifications.

The percentages can be revised and decided as a group, but I don't recommend going lower than the ones I've put very conservatively.

@vidyut 50% looks good. How frequent should we check this? 6 months? 1 year? From membership day for each member or common for all members?

Constitution amendments should have the block option. Things that makes you want to quit instead. We could set a percentage for blocks too. If 5% blocks, it should not go through.

Isnt 5% a bit too less? .. We are 71 , 3%would mean about 3-4 members .. On the contrary , out of the 71, hardly about 20-25 of us are active

i was thinking this too.

@praveenarimbrathod Frequency can be decided with consensus. 6 months sounds good. Three months would be too, if we were more active. Can be assessed every "x" months together, or individually every "x" months after becoming permanent members. Self reporting should be encouraged rather than monitoring.