codema.in
Mon 18 Apr 2016 11:24AM

Clarify discussion levels as amendment to constitution

PP Pirate Praveen Public Seen by 336

Add a new article after "basic principles".

Article 2: Decision making
1. There three levels of discussions, wider public, associate members (includes permanent members), permanent members
2. Membership is not necessary to participate at the wider public level.
2.1 This allows us to get maximum input an any discussions.
2.2 This allows anyone to participate in our discussions before they join us.
3. Any person can veto/block a proposal if it is against basic principles.
4. No blocks is a green signal to proceed. Those who disagreed need not participate in implementation of the proposal.
5. If there is a block in wider public, it may be moved to associate member level and then to permanent member level.
6. We need approval to be a permanent member because we cannot remove a permanent member once accepted. Most organizations use this route to suppress dissent.

Suggest changes, needs approval from permanent members for it to be effective. Starting it here for widest comments.

BC

Balasankar C Sat 4 Jun 2016 7:56AM

I am Ok with forking, if the name is not exactly the same. I have
no problem if someone forks and names their group Indian Pirates
(Z). My problem is when they can name theirs also Indian Pirates.

PP

Pirate Praveen Sat 4 Jun 2016 8:01AM

Differentiating part is (Z), that is already mentioned.

PB

Pirate Bady Sat 4 Jun 2016 8:45AM

it's not about preventing forks, but about preventing misuse of the collective's resources as @balasankarchelamat mentioned. even "Free Software" has "some rights reserved" in order to prevent its misuse. similarly, imo, Indian Pirates should also preserve some rights by modifying Article 2 - Section 2 - Sub-Section 4 as follows:

"Every member has a right to dissent and can fork resources of Indian Pirates under a different name."

the above modification also implies that the current Sub-Section 6 under Article 2 - Section 2 should be removed.

A

Akshay Sun 5 Jun 2016 2:30PM

I think that "anyone can veto" can be made to work, only if there is a process for removing any permanent member from the group. For example, it should be possible for someone to come up with the proposal to remove Pirate Praveen from the group stating somewhere where he goes against the constitution and everyone except Praveen can have veto right in that particular proposal.