Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bylaws"

From mwstake
Jump to: navigation, search
(Toward Consensus)
Line 32: Line 32:
: My vote: {{aye}} --[[User:Cindy Cicalese|Cindy Cicalese]] ([[User talk:Cindy Cicalese|talk]]) 11:25, 24 April 2019 (EDT)
: My vote: {{aye}} --[[User:Cindy Cicalese|Cindy Cicalese]] ([[User talk:Cindy Cicalese|talk]]) 11:25, 24 April 2019 (EDT)
: My vote: {{aye}} --[[User:Sabine.melnicki|Sabine.melnicki]] ([[User talk:Sabine.melnicki|talk]]) 10:57, 25 April 2019 (EDT)

Revision as of 10:57, 25 April 2019

The Bylaws page is modified using the following:

  1. Making the subsections wiki headers, this allows specific sections (4.3.6, etc.)
    • This makes the TOC more complicated, but is fixed by <div class="toclimit-2">__TOC__</div> and changes to Common.css
    • However, doing this also removes the visibility of section numbering, but is fixed by adding the NumberedHeadings extension and adding __NUMBEREDHEADINGS__
    • This makes the sections different font sizes, but is fixed by changes to Common.css
  2. Removing section edit links by using __NOEDITSECTION__
  3. Edits on February 14, 2019, by Frank Taylor
    • Inserted commas after "be advised of" in provisions 3.6.1 and 3.6.2.
    • Reversed order of terms "Special Meeting of Members" and "Annual Meeting of Members" in provision
    • Inserted explanations in note 4, note 8, and note 14.
  4. Edits on February 24, 2019, by Frank Taylor
    • Changed “shall” to “will” in,, and 5.1.1.
    • Changed number of directors from eight to nine in 5.1.1.
    • Added note to
  5. The fee schedule is based on the Linux Foundation (another 501c6) Bylaws

Toward Consensus[edit]

We need consensus from board members on the Bylaws. This section is for noting that.


My vote: Green tickY --User:MarkAHershberger(talk) 14:11, 23 April 2019 (EDT)


I’m good with the bylaws, except that I think we should have measurable actions we plan to take for section 2.3. Those measurements and action specifics don’t need to be in the bylaws, and probably shouldn’t be, but perhaps should be linked from it. Examples: 2.3.1-commit X patches to MW core, Y of which close out preexisting Phabricator tasks.

2.3.2 is what we were talking about with Ext:Duplicator. We need to formalize what we plan to do with it

Right, putting the specific things we're working on in the Bylaws wouldn't be appropriate. How about updating the bylaws to point to a specific way to track our current activities? --User:MarkAHershberger(talk) 14:13, 23 April 2019 (EDT)


My vote: Green tickY --Bryandamon (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2019 (EDT)


My vote: Green tickY --Cindy Cicalese (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2019 (EDT)


My vote: Green tickY --Sabine.melnicki (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2019 (EDT)