[sudo-discuss] Constable amendment changes

[Anthony Di Franco]

In addition, at least.
On Mar 7, 2013 9:42 AM, "mattsenate at gmail.com" <mattsenate at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with the sentiment, and in lieu of suggesting an alternative at
> first, decided to ask for more thoughts, so thanks.
>
> However, even if it is a process we do now, I disagree that (a) it is
> absolutely necessary for the exchequer specifically to do this rather than
> to support the overall process and encourage better systems to automate and
> (b) it need not be codified in the description of the role, but instead as
> documentation, best practices, recommendations, etc such as on a wiki page.
> Further, I would suggest if we did want to keep it in, that we think long
> and hard, but add it to the fiscal solvency process, for which we are
> collectively responsible, and the exchequer may be the first or default
> person to implement or act.
>
> Do you think it reasonable to make a new wiki page instead for exchequer
> operational insight?
>
> // Matt
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco at gmail.com>
> To: "Matthew Senate" <mattsenate at gmail.com>
> Cc: "sudo-discuss" <sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> Subject: [sudo-discuss] Constable amendment changes
> Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2013 9:04 AM
>
>
> In the second case, I added this because handling the money and being
> authorized to use the accounts was key to my being exchequer, and will
> remain so, and even if aspects of the processes of handling money are
> delegated, distributed, automated, (it happened with wepay a bit,) these
> basics remain necessary as a default.
> On Mar 7, 2013 2:49 AM, "Matthew Senate" <mattsenate at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > hey all,
> >
> > here are the changes I described in the mtg tonight:
> >
> http://sudoroom.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Articles_of_Association%2FConstable&diff=2637&oldid=2635
> >
> > This page's history has:
> > (a) the current Articles
> > (b) the proposal from tonight
> > (c) my proposed changes
> >
> > // Matt
> >
> > p.s.
> >
> > I left out some bits about Facilitator and Exchequer, but the rest is
> > mainly re-worded, reduced, and refined. The omitted pieces (due to
> > unnecessary  in the first case since majority vote already over-rules
> > facilitator, and too specific for the second case):
> >
> > Facilitator:
> >
> > ** Uses own best judgment to resolve ambiguity in the Articles of
> > Association about how business is handled in meetings, but may be
> > challenged in this by anyone who does not consent, which results in a
> > majority vote on sustaining or overturning the Facilitator's judgment.
> >
> > Exchequer:
> >
> > ** Receives dues and donations and pays expenses on behalf of the group,
> > using the group's accounts.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sudo-discuss mailing list
> > sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130307/4cd46286/attachment.html>