Proposal: Change proposal requirements

[Luis Montes]

30 days is way too long to get a proposal through.

Change these two lines:

"Proposals must be submitted at least 30 days before an HYH meeting to be eligible for voting."

"Proposals are automatically considered at the HYH meeting if they have been discussed for 30 days."

to:

"Proposals must be submitted at least 9 days before an HYH meeting to be eligible for voting."

"Proposals are automatically considered at the HYH meeting if they have been discussed for 9 days."

This is a repeat of a proposal from back in May that was never voted on.

-Luis

[David Lang]

(everything below is personal opinion, not board opinion)

I think it shouldn't be too easy to change the bylaws, borrowing from the
example in the bylaws

post the proposal an Dec 29/30, proposal fixed on Jan 1/2, vote on Jan 8 quorum
of 8, 2 yes, 1 no, 5 abstain should not be sufficient for a change as
significant as altering our bylaws.

or think of the vote happening on the day after Christmas or Thanksgiving
weekend

I would go the other way for bylaw changes, requireing that they get passed
at multiple HYH meetings or that some significant percentage of 'active members'
(however that can be defined, but 'able to attend HYH this one specific day is
a poor way to define it) must vote or explicitly abstain.

Changes to the rules need to be done deliberatly, not in haste.

David Lang

[Luis Montes]

"Changes to the rules need to be done deliberatly, not in haste."

That is the opposite of what I'm doing.  I made the initial proposal back in April.  And it was done to counter bylaws changes that were either done in haste or at least done without a vote by the community.   No one is trying to sneak something in on christmas eve.  This isn't real US politics.  This is a lab that clearly has made easily correctable mistakes that we need to fix.
We are sitting at a monthly deficit with limited funds and yet somehow seem to be putting up barriers to participation.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/5o5pp04p-6n05-4pp7-60s0-16r8191o3s63%40ynat.uz.

[Brett Neese]

"30 days is way too long to get a proposal through."

Can you identify recent examples, other than bylaws changes (which seem to me should require deliberate, broad consensus, not in haste as was done in the past) where the current process has been an impediment?

> This is a lab that clearly has made easily correctable mistakes that we need to fix.

Can you name examples of mistakes that were made through a proposal that would've been fixed by an accelerated proposal process? 

> yet somehow seem to be putting up barriers to participation.

Nobody is trying to put up barriers. We're trying to do right by the lab and do what it takes to make the lab flourish. The solution to disorganization isn't to do things faster, it's to be more deliberate and think things that lead to disorganization through - and try to prevent unintended side effects such as we've seen recently. In fact, I'd argue that a faster proposal process is itself a barrier to participation.

On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 3:00 PM David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote:

[Luis Montes]

*haste is the opposite of what i'm doing with this proposal.  The rules change is indeed intended to deliberate and with what is now more than 6 months of discussion available.

In fact, since this was never voted on and is well passed the 30 day mark now: Can someone see a reason it shouldn't be voted on at the next HYH?

[David Lang]

Luis Montes wrote:

> "Changes to the rules need to be done deliberatly, not in haste."
>
> That is the opposite of what I'm doing. I made the initial proposal back
> in April. And it was done to counter bylaws changes that were either done
> in haste or at least done without a vote by the community. No one is
> trying to sneak something in on christmas eve. This isn't real US
> politics. This is a lab that clearly has made easily correctable mistakes
> that we need to fix.
> We are sitting at a monthly deficit with limited funds and yet somehow seem
> to be putting up barriers to participation.

I am looking at how the rules that you are proposing could be abused by someone
else in the future.

this proposal to change the proposal requirements would not affect your
cardholder peoposal (which will be voted on at the same time, it could only
affect proposals after that.

David Lang

[Luis Montes]

On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 3:17 PM Brett Neese <br...@neese.rocks> wrote:

"30 days is way too long to get a proposal through."

Can you identify recent examples, other than bylaws changes (which seem to me should require deliberate, broad consensus, not in haste as was done in the past) where the current process has been an impediment?

I am specifically asking to modify or repeal bylaws changes with my two proposals. Both of which were brought forth as proposals much longer than 30 days ago.  These were new rules that we did not have before. Neither of the changes were given broad consensus. If we want to require deliberate, broad consensus then they should be stricken immediately.  I'm asking yet again to put it up for a vote.

 

> This is a lab that clearly has made easily correctable mistakes that we need to fix.

Can you name examples of mistakes that were made through a proposal that would've been fixed by an accelerated proposal process? 

> yet somehow seem to be putting up barriers to participation.

Nobody is trying to put up barriers. We're trying to do right by the lab and do what it takes to make the lab flourish. The solution to disorganization isn't to do things faster, it's to be more deliberate and think things that lead to disorganization through - and try to prevent unintended side effects such as we've seen recently. In fact, I'd argue that a faster proposal process is itself a barrier to participation.

A 6 month wait on a membership is a barrier that did not exist before a bylaw change was made without membership consensus.

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALOuO4OByx%2BK%2BTkuSfBfrEyspMayPwDDxNk5vdB1aG4tSDDvMw%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Lang]

Luis Montes wrote:

> *haste is the opposite of what i'm doing with this proposal. The rules
> change is indeed intended to deliberate and with what is now more than 6
> months of discussion available.
>
> In fact, since this was never voted on and is well passed the 30 day mark
> now: Can someone see a reason it shouldn't be voted on at the next HYH?

was this done before or after the proposal to change how bylaws can be ammended?
if it was proposed before that change, I think it would need to start again, if
it was proposed after that change, it could be voted on (but since it's so old,
we need to revive that discussion and continue there)

David Lang

[Luis Montes]

They were both made in April.  This one was 9 days after the other.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/rr529n8o-6883-86oo-ro6n-q876q2820343%40ynat.uz.

[Brett Neese]

Was this voted on at an HYH? What were the vote results? I ask because the bylaws very clearly state:

> Voting results must be posted to HeatSync Labs’ Google Group within seven (7) days of the meeting to ensure transparency.

It's not clear what happens to a proposal if it does get voted on but results are not posted. 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdAUoE5CeyvOgbusCWZ0TXYicpRtnACODStiC8FycRjB_A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Luis Montes]

It was not.  The board decided to meet on it and other proposals themselves and not have it on the HYH agenda.  It didn't get voted on by the board during that meeting either.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALOuO4PPsxQ3AT3JTNTPBGOcODm_H1GA3DqkfwT2Xk2M4J7AMg%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Lang]

Luis Montes wrote:

> They were both made in April. This one was 9 days after the other.

The legalistic part of me (and for defining the legal rules for running an organization, I think we need to be legalistic) says that any member proposal to change the bylaws cannot have any effect until the existing process to change the bylaws (by board vote) is used to allow a member proposal to change the bylaws.

Did the last board ever vote to ammend the bylaws to allow proposals to change the bylaws? if so, where is the vote documented? why were the bylaws not actually changed?

The current board has already discussed that we wanted to change the rules for ammending the bylaws so that it is not just a board vote. I believe that there was sufficient agreement that including some form of a member vote would clearly be approved by this board.


The question is under exactly what rules, should it be just any proposal/HYH vote (see my holiday examples of how it could be abused)?
or should there be some insistance on more participation in the vote?
should a bylaw change require both membership and board approval?
Since the bylaws are a legal document, should changes to them require review by an lawyer to make sure something isn't being added that will get us in trouble?

This may seem like a long process that has beeoing going on for 7+ months to you, but to the current board, this is largely new.

If these concerns were raised before and addressed, please point me at the prior discussion.

[David Lang]

Luis Montes wrote:

> It was not. The board decided to meet on it and other proposals themselves
> and not have it on the HYH agenda. It didn't get voted on by the board
> during that meeting either.

what about the proposal to change how bylaws are changed? was that voted on in
an HYH and/or by the board?

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdAUoE5CeyvOgbusCWZ0TXYicpRtnACODStiC8FycRjB_A%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CA%2B%3DVRdAUoE5CeyvOgbusCWZ0TXYicpRtnACODStiC8FycRjB_A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>

>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "HeatSync Labs" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALOuO4PPsxQ3AT3JTNTPBGOcODm_H1GA3DqkfwT2Xk2M4J7AMg%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CALOuO4PPsxQ3AT3JTNTPBGOcODm_H1GA3DqkfwT2Xk2M4J7AMg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>
>

[Luis Montes]

On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 3:48 PM David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote:

Luis Montes wrote:

> It was not.  The board decided to meet on it and other proposals themselves
> and not have it on the HYH agenda.  It didn't get voted on by the board
> during that meeting either.

what about the proposal to change how bylaws are changed? was that voted on in
an HYH and/or by the board?

Yes, the board did have an internal vote on that one and passed it:  https://groups.google.com/g/heatsynclabs/c/8j-YQJp2NPA/m/IxEDzMRYFQAJ

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/sn40rn3r-q9q5-02r3-4389-4srqs6on8pps%40ynat.uz.

[David Lang]

Luis Montes wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 3:48 PM David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote:
>
>> Luis Montes wrote:
>>
>>> It was not. The board decided to meet on it and other proposals
>> themselves
>>> and not have it on the HYH agenda. It didn't get voted on by the board
>>> during that meeting either.
>>
>> what about the proposal to change how bylaws are changed? was that voted
>> on in
>> an HYH and/or by the board?
>>
>
>
> Yes, the board did have an internal vote on that one and passed it:
> https://groups.google.com/g/heatsynclabs/c/8j-YQJp2NPA/m/IxEDzMRYFQAJ

Ok, it seems like they were then confused about what exactly they passed

and as a result, it never made it in to the bylaws.

https://groups.google.com/g/heatsynclabs/c/ieh31zet8YY

David Lang