[Bylaws Committee] Information & March Scheduling Poll

[Zachary Yaro]

Hi neighbors,

If you want to participate in Bylaws Committee meetings this month, please fill out your availability at https://www.when2meet.com/?29234267-AQW7F!

Based on the results of the scheduling poll from the informal bylaws working group, I am tentatively setting our first meeting for this coming Sunday, March 2nd, at noon at Revival (in the extra seating area across the alley).  If the new poll indicates a different time by tomorrow evening (Thursday, February 27th), I will notify this thread.

If you plan to participate, please try to bring not only your own perspectives, but those of neighbors you have conversed with who can't make it!  The document we produce will still need to pass a vote of the entire DSNC, so it is vital we consider their priorities and seek approaches everyone in the neighborhood can accept.  Our conversations over the past month have led me to change my mind on a variety of matters without compromising my values, and I hope you come to the committee open to doing the same!

Prior to the meeting, I plan to compile a list of the top issues we need to discuss based on the proposed amendments.  If you have topics you think the Bylaws Committee needs to address before the bylaws can pass, please add them to that document.  If you aren't sure how to phrase the change(s) you want to see as an amendment(s), I added a new section at the very bottom of the page for that!

Kind regards,

Zachary Yaro

[Joel Sutherland]

Thanks for taking on this important role, Zachary!

I'd like to suggest an approach for the bylaws committee's output. I'm sharing this on the forum because others might have thoughts about what they'd like to see from the committee, even if they won't be attending its meetings.

From our last meeting's discussions and straw polls, I believe most members prefer specific, relevant amendments brought for an up-or-down vote with carefully reviewed language that minimizes the need for amendments-to-amendments. For important but controversial issues where polished wording hasn't been achieved, they prefer a quick discussion and broad conceptual vote to determine if there's enough support to justify further work and potential delay of the bylaws.

To address this, I suggest that the committee categorize amendments/ideas into three classes that qualify for presentation to the membership:

Class A (Important, Uncontroversial, and Clear): Has a champion and no strong opposition, with peer review among the committee to refine the wording. This may include moving/renaming sections, adding clarifying language, or other changes unlikely to spark debate. We could bundle these into a single amendment, and we should take particular care to get feedback from the membership ahead of the regular meeting so any controversial elements could be separated. This should pass with minimal debate beyond the mover's introduction.

Class B (Important, Controversial, and Clear): Has a champion and committee majority support for addressing it before passing the bylaws (not necessarily supporting its passage, but agreeing it merits a membership vote), along with some firm opposition. The committee agrees on wording that is clear and avoids procedural issues or contradictions. These should be presented individually with specific wording, not bundled. If debate becomes bogged down in amendments-to-the-amendment, we can vote to refer it back to committee.

Class C (Important, Controversial, and Unclear): Similar to Class B, but with no agreed-upon wording in time for the regular meeting. Instead of a formal amendment, we'd have a time-boxed discussion followed by an informal vote on the concept. Majority support would return it to committee (hopefully reaching Class B by the next meeting), while failure would close the issue for the remainder of this process.

With this approach, I believe we can efficiently address the remaining issues. We can distribute a streamlined list of polished amendments, straw-poll topics, and commentary before the regular meeting, allowing members to prepare for informed debate. If we implement this well and someone still brings up an unvetted issue at the meeting, or one that was considered in committee but determined not to be important enough to advance, it would be reasonable for the membership to limit extended consideration by quickly closing debate.

Thanks for your consideration,
Joel Sutherland

[Chris Lahey]

This sounds like an excellent plan. Two thoughts.

1: I feel like a supermajority should be required to move class C amendments to the closed state. Maybe a regular majority could mean let's debate this online and if people online have been convinced to move, (and not just already were on that side or are feeling bullied), we can reopen it at a future meeting or the committee can work on them to move them to class B if it decides that is worth the time of the committee. This idea needs a bit of refinement.

2: we should committee to publishing the streamlined list of amendments a certain amount of time before the meeting. If they're presented the morning of a full meeting that's not that useful.

Bonus idea:

3: it'd be great if the committee could publish their work after each meeting.

--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://sites.google.com/view/DavisSquareNC · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/9710346e-de27-46e9-a7f2-b585284d219cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Joel Sutherland]

1: I feel like a supermajority should be required to move class C amendments to the closed state. Maybe a regular majority could mean let's debate this online and if people online have been convinced to move, (and not just already were on that side or are feeling bullied), we can reopen it at a future meeting or the committee can work on them to move them to class B if it decides that is worth the time of the committee. This idea needs a bit of refinement.

In the Class C case, the vote is essentially whether to refer the issue back to the committee for study or to shelve it, so it already supports the idea of voting Yes because "I'm not sure but I think this is important to continue developing". A No vote is a more more definitive "we've heard enough and don't need the committee to keep working on this". I think if we're to move efficiently through the process, it would be good to accept a clear signal where we can get it, and it would be a shame to spend a lot of time working on an idea which has 35% support and will eventually just fail. Of course, someone can always bring it up again at a committee meeting or regular meeting if they choose (and a supermajority would be required to end debate), but the purpose of these straw polls is to help us avoid that and spend our time refining winning ideas.

2: we should committee to publishing the streamlined list of amendments a certain amount of time before the meeting. If they're presented the morning of a full meeting that's not that useful.

3: it'd be great if the committee could publish their work after each meeting.

Strong agree! I trust Zachary to make decisions on how and when we update the group as this comes together, which may depend on how many meetings we manage to get in before the March meeting, how things are progressing, etc.

[Zachary Yaro]

Hi neighbors,

Thank you to everyone who filled out the When2Meet.  Since there are concentrations both days this weekend, I will plan to be at Revival Cafe Saturday, March 1st AND Sunday, March 2nd, from 12:00-2:30 PM to maximize opportunities for folks to get involved out of the gate.  Everyone is of course welcome to attend either or both times, and I intend to recap what we discuss on Saturday at the start of Sunday's meeting!

The topics/proposed changes I intend to discuss first are:

1. Document structure
2. Definitions (mostly clarifications and shifting things around)
3. Purpose/objective/values
4. Membership criteria & join process
5. Conduct/ethics
• Requirements for non-profit status
6. Outreach & inclusion
7. Board structure & duties
• Documentation
• Finances
• Quorum
8. Board nominations & elections
9. Board resignations & removals
10. Board vacancies
11. Committees/working groups
12. Mandated meeting frequency
13. Meeting accessibility
14. Meeting notifications
15. Dissolution
16. Parliamentary procedure

(We of course won't get through most of that list this weekend.  Please of course let me know if you think it would serve us better to discuss some of those in an alternative order.)

Like last year's Bylaws Working Group, my aim is for this Bylaws Committee to produce a new, complete draft of the bylaws, but in addition, I intend to also produce a list of the noteworthy changes from the draft we looked at last meeting (and potentially also of matters we don't find consensus/compromises on).  If we have broad consensus from the whole DSNC on a new draft, we can pass it!  If we have matters the committee or other DSNC members think require further discussion or amendments, we can still pass the uncontested changes and then resume the amendment process with significantly fewer in the queue.

I intend anything the committee writes to be on the DSNC Google Drive after (if not during) each committee meeting.  I will also send updates (and potentially questions and straw polls from the committee) to the mailing list, and occasionally update relevant links on the DSNC website Council Formation and Links pages.  I encourage everyone who can't make any in-person meetings, or wants to keep engaging outside those meetings, to leave comments on those documents.  Right now, you can continue to leave comments, other ideas, and other documents you want to consider on 📝 the proposed amendments doc (see the section at the bottom for links to other documents).

See you soon!

Zachary Yaro

--

Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://sites.google.com/view/DavisSquareNC · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/d34fafbc-33c7-49ee-827f-ee5796f7a144n%40googlegroups.com.

[Zachary Yaro]

Hi neighbors,

Thank you to the folks who came to this afternoon's meeting and who submitted comments online in advance!  We got through the first 3 categories of topics, and I like where we ended up—I think we struck a good balance between explaining how we want the DSNC to effect our values and keeping the section as concise as possible, and I hope folks following along at home agree!

We will convene again at Revival Cafe tomorrow, Sunday the 2nd, from 12:00-2:30 PM.  I will review what we discussed today in case folks who didn't make today's meeting have changes we should consider, and then we will continue through the topics.  The 📝 the proposed amendments doc also continues to be open for other amendments, descriptions of desired changes, and links to documents to consider!

We are only one meeting into this process, so different edits don't all line up with each other yet, and may not until late in the month, but we have 📝 a new document with the changes the Bylaws Committee is proposing to the bylaws, and I intend to keep it updated with the various changes we agree on during this process.  All those changes will still, of course, need to pass a vote by the full DSNC at the end of the month.

See you tomorrow!

Zachary Yaro