We currently have an issue that getting a quorum with our voting members is difficult, this is due to in-activity of members and certain actions requiring 2/3 of the voting members to participate for it to be considered a valid vote.
My proposal is that a in-activity requirement be added, that if a voting member does not participate in 3 consecutive voting events, that they be removed from the list of voting members. And their $100 refunded.
if they can’t be contacted or met to return the $100 it will be held for them till they can be refunded the money
A member who has been removed as a voting member can ask to be added back at any time
(if they received their $100 deposit they must resubmit it) but it won’t take effect until after the next up-coming member meeting.
this is to help prevent mass on boarding of voters to push a vote.
I agree we should re-examine how voting works. Really like all the mechanisms above; I’d also like to lower the $100 — $50 seems like enough to be meaningful but less likely to be class-dividing.
Goal is to have voters that care about community, volunteer their time, and commit to being informed and active voters.
New members must wait until 30 days after becoming dues-paying community member, and take one class or complete a meaningful project at the space.
Voters should be an active contributor on either the forums, working groups or community meetings (shows that they care about governance)
Commit to reviewing proposals and voting when it’s voting time.
Demonstrate community contributions of say 4 hrs/month on approved activity and commit to carrying through for first 12 months (including trial). Teaching classes, work days, maintenance all would count towards this.
(@Tookys I think you wrote up some stuff about that in another place that I couldn’t find so some of these ^^ may be your ideas badly recycled)
Per the OA this can be done by B-Share vote (i.e. majority of a quorum, not the much harder amendment process). We could run the vote following discussion at the July first-wed meeting; can other people weigh in? (@voters)