Proposed amendment to Member Section for 2024 Annual Meeting #10
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The comments are typos, but more importantly, I have 3 main issues:
-
The only responsibility that can realistically be broken is the cleanliness one. So calling the consequences a result of not following the responsibilities is incongruous.
-
Members will receive written warnings from who? Presumably the board. Who determines if the responsibility has or hasn't been met? Is this a formal member escalation policy, or just power being given to the board?
-
The board already has a formal mechanism to address any general complaints about a member. I am in general for having a set of expectations for members, but I do not think that having a specific playbook for these scenarios tied to the bylaws is necessary. The bylaws at the moment are lean and we haven't run into (or close to) a scenario that begs this change.
Basically I'm for setting out the cleanliness as a responsibility but have specific punishment tied to it.
|
|
||
| # Members may resign by written notice to memberadmin@hacklab.to | ||
| ## leaving the space as clean as or better than the member finds it after each visit. | ||
| ## reporting damage or problems with the equipment or space to the area steward, or the Board if no steward is available, as soon as possible. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should "don't break the anti-harassment policy" be added to member responsibilities?
|
I think the by-laws with this change are less authoritarian than the current bylaws. Specifically, after the change three warnings are needed for the board to remove a member. My understanding is that the board can now remove members at will. I don't think explicitly saying that cleaning is a member responsibility is overly onerous. |
That would be nice but this line is still in the bylaws. Edit: To be clear; this change only increases ways that members can be removed. |
Members can fail to rectify an invalid email, pay dues, sign the current waiver, or report damage.
Other members can call members out in writing. Maybe an addition to copy the board to make sure it doesn't turn into harassment, but we all are supposed to help keep each other accountable, no? It's just the board that gets to deal with the consequences. |
"Discipline of a member and terminating a membership A member must be given at least 15 days’ notice of a disciplinary action or termination. The notice must give reasons and must explain that the member has the right to be heard orally, in writing or in another format allowed by the articles or by-laws. Refer to section 51 of ONCA." - Guide to ONCA If you want the only consequence for violating responsibilities to be revocation, then we don't have to add anything. I'm trying to add more intermediate steps, so we don't just have to rely on nothing or get out. |
|
Alright I think I see the importance of offering intermediate steps or guidance for escalation. The formality of the 3 strikes rule is what makes me uncomfortable, its pressure to act a way in a situation, regardless of the circumstances of the situation. pt by pt:
Invalid email is unenforceable without spot checks, paying dues is already dealt with, signing the waiver is unenforceable too given our current filing method. Leaving only the cleanliness/damage (lab etiquette).
I've told other members who I believe are quite good lab stewards to clean up their shit more than 3 times 😁. All before joining the board. Either way I think it should be spelled out more explicitly if we keep the strike system.
This is the specific word of the act, not a paraphrase from s51: Maybe something along the lines of:
Interestingly we don't have anything in the bylaws about fining or suspending a member. |
| ### Revocation of membership. | ||
|
|
||
| # Members must resign by written notice to memberadmin@hacklab.to | ||
| ## Members are responsible for paying dues until the date a written request to resign is received. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could this line be done as a separate PR. I think it's less controversial than the other changes, and it still seems positive to me.
You're right. Also, I do think the board needs the power to quickly remove a member for something that's not codified in the by-laws. For example, a member gets into a heated discussion with somebody in the lab and throws a punch. I'd upvote a PR that just added a clause to the effect that members are responsible for cleaning up after themselves, given we've had problems. That would leave enforcement completely up to the board. |
|
This PR has been reopened fyi |
These lines address the member responsibilities to keep the space clean, to report damages and dangers, and outline consequences of failing to fulfill member responsibilities.