GCD Board Votes - 2010: Difference between revisions

From GCD
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Add some February and March motions, standardize classification based on when the vote closed rather than opened.)
m (Fix formatting)
Line 18: Line 18:


The following motion has passed with 5 members voting in favor and 4 against:
The following motion has passed with 5 members voting in favor and 4 against:
In favor:  Will Allred, Henry Andrews, Peter Croome, Lionel English, Matt Gore
In favor:  Will Allred, Henry Andrews, Peter Croome, Lionel English, Matt Gore
Against:  Ray Bottorff, Jr.,  Ralf Haring, Lou Mazzella, Tony Rose
Against:  Ray Bottorff, Jr.,  Ralf Haring, Lou Mazzella, Tony Rose



Revision as of 04:30, 28 May 2010

February 2010

Repurpose gcd-main

The following motion has passed with 6 members voting in favor, 2 voting against and 1 member abstaining:

In favor: Will Allred, Henry Andrews, Ray Bottorff, Jr., Peter Croome, Lionel English, Tony Rose Against: Ralf Haring, Lou Mazzella Abstain: Matt Gore

That gcd-main be repurposed from being a general discussion list for all GCD business to focusing on the actual data and other comics-related material and discussions, plus basic requests for help and clarification. All current subscribers shall remain subscribed unless they choose to change their own status. All mailing list settings (archiving, membership permissions, etc.) shall be left unchanged. The name of the list may be reconsidered at a later date, but shall be left unchanged at this time. Any discussion of rules or operational details beyond what is needed to clearly answer a question shall no longer be an appropriate topic for the list. In particular, as soon as an attempt to answer a question becomes controversial, it must move to the gcd-admin list as specified in the motion establishing that list. An announcement of the change of purpose of gcd-main shall be posted to gcd-main, gcd-chat, gcd-tech and gcd-editor.

Moved by Henry Andrews, seconded by Peter Croome, voting period: 2010-01-29 - 2010-02-05

GCD-Admin Mailing List (gcd-policy)

The following motion has passed with 5 members voting in favor and 4 against: In favor: Will Allred, Henry Andrews, Peter Croome, Lionel English, Matt Gore Against: Ray Bottorff, Jr., Ralf Haring, Lou Mazzella, Tony Rose

That the GCD create a new mailing list, tentatively called "gcd-admin" but subject to change before its creation at the will of the membership without need for further board action, for the express purpose of debating and resolving questions of day-to-day operations.

The mailing list shall be open to anyone who would like to join, but no members shall be subscribed automatically.

The mailing list archives shall be open to all members, but closed to non-members.

Operational questions without clear answers that arise on gcd-main or any other GCD mailing list should be moved to this list, with a notification to the original list that topic is being discussed on gcd-admin. Upon the resolution or abandonment of a topic, its resolution (or lack) should be posted to the gcd-main (and, if the list of origin was not gcd-main, gcd-board or gcd-contact, the list of origin).

Questions suitable for discussion on gcd-admin include but are not limited to:

 * Formatting questions
 * Non-technical aspects of proposed new, changed or deleted fields
 * Questions about whether an item belongs in the database or not
 * How to go about resolving a problem getting a changed approved

The above questions are no longer considered suitable for extended debate gcd-main (simple question and answer sessions are always permitted- these are distinguished by their lack of controversy).

Questions not suitable for discussion on gcd-admin include but are not limited to:

 * Discussions of the data itself (which belongs on gcd-main as it is of broad interest)
 * Discussions of technical details beyond that which is necessary to explain constraints (or their lack) on day-to-day operations
 

Notice of the new mailing list shall be posted to gcd-main, gcd-chat, gcd-tech and gcd-editor, along with clear instructions for how one may subscribe and a clear notice that no one shall be subscribed automatically.

Moved by Henry Andrews, seconded by Peter Croome, voting period: 2010-02-10 - 2010-02-17

March 2010

Mailing List Conduct

The following motion has passed with all members voting in favor.

That the GCD adopt the following policy with regard to all their mailing lists: Each of the GCD's mailing lists has a specific focus. We even have a list whose focus is things that are not on topic on the other lists. When posting to any of the lists, list members should keep their posts related to the charter/purpose of that list. Short digressions may be tolerated, but extended digressions will result in an on-list request to move the discussion to a more appropriate list. Personal attacks on any individual(s) on the list are not allowed. Determination of what is a personal attack will be made by the list admins. Personal attacks include, but are not limited to, name calling, harassment, and attempts to suppress the opinions and participation of other list members via verbal intimidation. Violations of rules have the following consequences: The first instance will result in a direct, private warning regarding the personal attack and a request to refrain from doing it again. The second instance from a poster will result in another private warning regarding the violation and the posting privileges of the poster being moderated for 3 calendar days. A third instance from a poster will result in a public warning regarding the attack and the posting privileges of the poster being moderated for 7 calendar days. A fourth instance will result in the poster being removed from the list and banned from rejoining for a period of one year. Any given violation will drop off a list member's record after one year, so in order to be permanently removed from a given list, the member would have to have committed four violations within a year of the most recent violation. Violations shall be tallied on a per list basis; and punishments doled out on a per list basis. Attempts to circumvent moderation by posting from an alternate email address will be considered an additional violation, and will incur the corresponding consequence. Enforcement of these rules shall be the responsibility of the list admins. Admins shall cc: other admins upon execution of any of the above consequences, so all list admins shall be apprised of such. Members who are subject to disciplinary measures may appeal to the other list admins if they believe they have been disciplined in error. The remaining list admins may defer a decision to the board if they cannot agree on the appropriateness of the original disciplinary action. Discussions on most GCD lists often involve minutiae. Given that the GCD attracts people who like to discuss and document comics minutiae, it should not be surprising that we often discuss the minutiae of our documentation methods, and there is frequent room for disagreement. As long as such discussions are kept focused on the minutiae under discuussion, and not on the personal characters of the posters participating in the discussion, there is no reason these conversations can't be kept productive.

Moved by Lionel English (passing the Chairman's gavel to Lou Mazzella), seconded and with a friendly amendment by Henry Andrews, voting period: 2010-02-28 - 2010-03-07

April 2010

No votes closed in April, 2010

May 2010

Anonymous disposable email addresses

The following motion has passed with all members voting in favor:

That we disallow anonymous disposable e-mail addresses (such as mailinator.com) for the creation of user accounts. User accounts are the GCD's way of having an ongoing connection with the people who enter the data into the database. Without that ongoing connection, we have no way to notify those people of changes in format or policy and we have no way to notify those people of problems with their indexing. The GCD does not require an account to view the data on its website or to be a member of the mailing list and therefore an anonymous account serves no real purpose.

Moved by Ralf Haring, seconded by Will Allred, friendly amendment from Peter Croome incorporated, voting period: 2010-04-28 - 2010-05-05

Elimination of the Senior Editors Group

The following motion has passed with 8 members voting in favor and one member abstaining:

In favor: Will Allred, Henry Andrews, Peter Croome, Lionel English, Ralf Haring, Matt Gore, Lou Mazzella, Tony Rose Abstained: Ray Bottorff, Jr.

That the Senior Editors Group (as created by the Board in September 2007) be eliminated. They were formed to make formatting and editorial decisions and that role has been re-assigned to the membership at large via the gcd-policy list.

Moved by Peter Croome, seconded by Lou Mazzella, voting period: 2010-05-05 - 2010-05-12

Scope of gcd-policy list decision-making authority

The following motion has passed with all members voting in favor:

That the gcd-policy list is empowered to make decisions (via process to be determined in future Board motions) on topics including, but not necessarily limited to:

  • Rules about field formats
  • Adding, removing, combining, splitting or otherwise restructuring fields within the GCD's existing charter
  • Case-by-case clarification of how to apply existing rules

The following areas are explicitly placed outside of the scope of gcd-policy and are reserved to the Board, Membership, or other Board-designated group under the guidance of the Charter:

  • Interpreting the charter
  • Setting the rules through which gcd-policy produces rules
  • Personnel decisions (coordinators, editors/approvers, etc.)
  • Technical decisions (how something will be implemented, as opposed to what will be implemented)
  • In general, any decision that impacts the project more broadly than the areas of responsibility outlined in the previous list

When there is a dispute or uncertainty over a particular topic's suitability for a gcd-policy decision, the Board shall resolve the dispute or uncertainty through it's usual voting process.

Moved by Henry Andrews, seconded by Ralf Haring, voting period: 2010-05-08 - 2010-05-15

General Coordinator Framework

The following motion has passed with all members voting in favor:

That all "Coordinator" positions be established along the following lines, unless otherwise specified in the motions establishing each individual position.

  • Each position shall be held by three individuals.
  • Each individual holds a one-year term, evenly spaced around the calendar year:
 * A February term, filled by the Board during January 
 * A June term, filled by the Board during May 
 * An October term, filled by the Board during September 
 * A coordinator may be subject to a forced recall vote on the Board if a number of members equal to the current size of the Board request such a vote.  After the failure of a recall vote, another vote may not be forced by the membership until three months have passed.   
 * The Board shall fill any vacancies resulting from recall or resignation immediately. 
 * Positions filled (due to a new position or the need for a mid-term replacement) within two months before the beginning of a term are considered to be part of that following term.  Otherwise they are considered to be serving the remainder of the previous term. 
 * A Coordinator may step down at any time, for any reason or no reason.  Likewise the Board may remove a Coordinator any time through a motion, although the Board must state a reason. 
  • The Board shall post the list of Coordinator positions that are being considered, the requirements one must have to serve in each position, and the current holders of each position, to the gcd-main mailing list and any other general list associated with the position at the beginning of the month of consideration. This will allow those who qualify for the position to notify the Board of their interest.
 * For new positions or mid-term replacements, the announcement should be made as soon as is practical, and the Board vote on the position should take place no earlier than one week after the announcement. 
 * The Board shall vote on a motion to appoint or re-appoint a given person to the Coordinator role through the same process as any other motion. 
  • Each Coordinator position is associated with a corresponding email address that will reach all current holders of the position.
  • Public-facing coordinator positions shall have one coordinator designated as the lead.
 * A public-facing coordinator is one that exists to handle requests from outside of the GCD mailing lists, either through the web site or through public email. 
 * While all three coordinators are equally empowered to respond to requests from the public, the lead coordinator is responsible for ensuring that someone sends a suitable response in a timely manner.  They may do so themselves, or they may request that one of the other coordinators respond. 
 * The lead shall be chosen by the coordinators, and the position may be reassigned among them as often as they deem necessary. 
 * If the coordinators cannot agree on the lead, one shall be appointed by the Board.  If no coordinator is willing to serve as lead, then the coordinator with the least time remaining in their term must step down, and a new coordinator who is willing to serve is lead can be selected. 
  • Coordinator groups responsible for issuing decisions may in general produce a decision whenever two of the three Coordinators agree.
 * In groups that include a lead coordinator, the lead's vote carries no more weight than that of either of the other two coordinators. 
 * The Board may overturn decisions issued by coordinators. 
 * As such decisions are generally intended to facilitate normal operation rather than determine binding policy, no process to force a Board vote shall exist.  As only two Board members are needed to bring up a motion for voting, the bar for getting a vote is not overly high. 
  • A coordinator who has failed to help carry out the position's duties for two consecutive months and does not respond to inquires may be removed by the other two coordinators.
 * If the coordinator being removed disputes the charges, the Board shall resolve the dispute.  However, as this rule is intended to be used when a coordinator disappears and can no longer be contacted, it is expected that such disputes shall be rare. 
 * A coordinator may appoint a temporary replacement for up to one month with the consent of the other two coordinators.  Disagreements on this matter are to be resolved by the Board. 

The existing position of Technical Coordinator is exempted from these rules on the grounds that it is primarily an internal liaison and arbitration position. Other existing positions are slated for review by the Board, which will determine the applicability of this framework in their individual motions.

Moved by Henry Andrews, seconded by Lou Mazzella, vote period: 2010-05-20 - 2010-05-27

Data Distribution Policy

The following motion has passed with 7 members voting in favor and 2 against: In favor: Will Allred, Henry Andrews, Peter Croome, Lionel English, Ralf Haring, Lou Mazzella, Matt Gore Against: Ray Bottorff, Jr., Tony Rose

That the GCD distribute its data as a bi-weekly delivery of the complete then-current public data set, in formats including but not necessarily limited to a direct database dump of the public tables and fields. The tech team is directed to fulfill this policy on a best effort basis, with the understanding that a fully automated delivery is both practical and preferred. The establishment of this policy does not prevent the GCD from making alternate arrangements for additional service on a case-by-case basis.

Moved by Henry Andrews, seconded by Will Allred, vote period: 2010-05-20 - 2010-05-27