Talk:Authorization Policy Vote: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

Newer edit →

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 :What is a "policy" in a PS1 context?  I see that we have at least one policy (the Conflict of Interest Policy) as part of our bylaws.  Is that what we intend this policy to be as well, an amendment to the bylaws?  If so, easy enough, though we should bear in mind that to make any exception to the policy, we'll need a 2-week lead time to propose a vote.  If this, or any other policy, is something other than a bylaw, what differentiates it from a bylaw?
-:Assuming the intention is to incorporate this into the bylaws, my two suggestions on language are:
-:1) Reduce ambiguity regarding relative authority of the board vs. the area hosts.  In several places "The Board of Directors or an Area Host" are given authority to do certain things under the policy.  What happens if they disagree?  (Say the Board wants to require certification for a given tool, but the Area Host thinks that's unnecessary.)  I'd rather give authority to one or the other by default.  Either the Area Host (with the Board as back-up if the Area Host position is vacant or if the Host declines to make a ruling), or the Board (which could obviously ask the Area Host for advice).
-:2) I would not constrain the Board/Area Host's authority to grant exceptions.  The policy as written is so broad as not to be a meaningful restraint (virtually anything could be deemed "events that provide benefit to Pumping Station: One"), but formally writing a list of accepted situations where exceptions can be granted will simply provoke arguments down the line about whether the Board has authority to grant an exception in a given situation.
 :Anyway, those are my thoughts/questions.
@@ Line 38: / Line 32: @@
 == Ambiguity ==
 Kyle Bieneman from the mailing list:
+:Assuming the intention is to incorporate this into the bylaws, my two suggestions on language are:
 :1) Reduce ambiguity regarding relative authority of the board vs. the area hosts.  In several places "The Board of Directors or an Area Host" are given authority to do certain things under the policy.  What happens if they disagree?  (Say the Board wants to require certification for a given tool, but the Area Host thinks that's unnecessary.)  I'd rather give authority to one or the other by default.  Either the Area Host (with the Board as back-up if the Area Host position is vacant or if the Host declines to make a ruling), or the Board (which could obviously ask the Area Host for advice).