User talk:Mike Cline/USCAN Working Group Drafts/Phase I Task Forces/Working Group Deliberation and Decision Process/Wikipedia Education Working Group - Rules for Procedure

=Debate on Specific Sections= 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.

Version One
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.

Version Two
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.

Summary of discussion list conversation to date
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)

Continued on-wiki discussion
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)


 * A clarification: the proposal to make decisions in meetings certainly does not preclude making substantial use of written formats for discussion and debate (and indeed the Working Group should continue to use such formats).  Certainly on points where we can come to consensus via written formats, meetings for decisions are not necessary and not called for. On other points and for major strategic decisions, however, the proposal calls for any needed *votes* on to be made in a group setting where people can hear each other after preliminary discussions have taken place via other formats.


 * "Regarding state law, it is worth noting that not all US states permit bylaws to be restricted to avoid the need for voiced deliberations. Additionally, the arguments supporting such a format for deliberations of strategic decisions apply to any context where major decisions are being made.  Although the working group is not a board and is not a  fiduciary to shareholders, we nonetheless have an ethical obligation to carry out our work using best known practices to make sure that our mutual resources of time and of expense are put to use in processes known to produce the best outcomes.  That said, to the extent that we can make good use of written formats well-known to Wikipedians for discussion of as many items as possible, I would not anticipate the need for meetings beyond what we can easily accomplish.  (Most boards of directors, for example, accomplish their key work in just a a few meetings per year, with the bulk of work done in committees and via written formats).


 * DStrassmann (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Diana, I have a couple of questions. First, are you saying that the law requires any vote to be a voice vote?  That is, any decision, regardless of topic, which is taken by vote is subject to the restrictions you mention?  That seems remarkably restrictive.  Second, your comment above suggests we only need to have a voice vote for "any context where major decisions are being made", but I don't see anything in version two of the proposed Article V that limits the requirement to a voice vote only to major decisions.  How could that be done?  Finally, which states don't permit restriction of this by bylaws?  If we incorporate in California, as seems likely, would we be able to restrict this requirement?  Or is it easy to incorporate in any state we wish?  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I also think the first option might be the best route, since we're spanning different time zones with pretty busy schedules. I think the "in-person" (or video/conference) meetings are extraordinarily useful in initial debates, but perhaps this is where task forces can use those meetings. Time-wise, I do think the written format of Version 1 will be ideal. JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I see the rules under debate as temporary, ones that should be designed to set up a good process for the groundwork we will lay for the next phases of our work, including incorporation. That said, the insights derived for nonprofit best practices should be considered as we decide what procedures will be most conducive to our achieving the best outcome, one that makes use of the skills and expertise of our whole working group, and does not overly advantage those with freer time schedules or greater familiarity with particular modes of communication.


 * Meetings for oral deliberation do not preclude the use of written pre-vote forums. If there is consensus, written consent is always acceptable. I am not  opposed to making any kind of non unanimous decision through written formats, but as the main task before us is strategic, these are pretty big decisions to be making using a forum that is not best practice for such types of decisions, and I would suggest that we carefully consider whether we want to make all decisions through such formats.


 * One possibility would be to clarify the language to make sure that as much work as possible is done through written forums and in committees, and only to require coming together for final debates on shaping major items, as we are already currently planning to do in September. Pre debate work and final tune ups can be done and agreed to in other forums. As I mentioned in my recent email to the group, the rules could also potentially include a mechanism for making certain types of specified short term urgent decisions in a different way from major longer term strategic decisions, such as with supermajority requirement. DStrassmann (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree the assumption that a written format disadvantages those with less free time. I would think that folks with busy schedules (which I'm sure includes all of us) would find it easier to read, debate, and vote on issues at their convenience rather than being limited to whatever time is decided for a conference call. A minimum 7 day debate period with a 3 day voting period, in my opinion, provides a much better opportunity to get the input of the whole working group. Pjthepiano (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My preference is email for most of the work and a one-hour skype-like meeting every week to take votes (with absentee votes allowed).Rjensen (talk) 09:13, 1 September 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)


 * Do we want to clarify what we might do via wiki in advance and afterwards vs. decisions we will make as a group together in September? DStrassmann (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to. None of the task forces, with the exception of this task force and the communications task force, have deadlines predating the September meeting so I don't expect any task force to be reporting recommendations within the next week. It sounds like most folks support version 1. If that's the case then I move that we insert that language into Article V of the rules and then recommend the proposal to the Working Group for its final consideration. Any objections? Pjthepiano (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

=General Feedback and Questions=

Please use this section to give any general feedback or to ask any questions you may have.

=Vote on Final Passage=

Support

 * Pjthepiano (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sgelbman (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jgmikulay (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike Christie (talk contribs - library) 01:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Richard Jensen Rjensen (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The Interior (Talk) 16:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Rebecca Burdette (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bob Cummings (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Brianwc (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not voting
Changed to support after some discussions, as I agree it is already good enough to work with.  DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Still too formal and elaborate, especially for temporary rules, with too much reliance on vote, not consensus--all of this especially with respect to the Task Forces. But I don't want to actively oppose, especially when so new to the group,.    DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)