I think the changes are very good. The only things I can see are a) the language in the section about tie splitting is written quite broadly when you are actually only referring to election to the board: maybe something like 'in the event of a tie among candidates for election to a vacancy on the board, the succesful candidate will be decided by a simple majority of continuing members of the board.'

And b) personally, and speaking as a Canadian, I find a simple majority to be a pretty low bar for proposing amendments to the bylaws--surely nobody would want to proceed with a proposal that had a 5/3 split. Personally I'd recommend 6 out of 8 to indicate that bylaw changes should be well considered and very consensus oriented.

I don't think it is likely to be a huge deal in practice of course. And notwithstanding these suggestions, I think these are great proposals from a group that has been doing great work.

Sent from my Samsung Captivate(tm) on Rogers

James Cummings James.Cummings@digitalmedievalist.org wrote:

Hi Grant (and DM-L)

We've been fairly good at getting a strong field of candidates each year and hope this will continue. It will involve some changes in the first couple years, I suspect, but by which time those who have served before could serve again. I don't foresee a dramatic change in this, but the slate for each year's elections has always been a (pleasant) surprise.

We also wish to increase activities undertaken by the community itself as volunteers. You know this being one of those wonderful volunteers. I envision that in my minimum 1-year off, I will certainly be volunteering some technical expertise with regards to updating the technical infrastructure behind DM. There might be a sudden lack of some specific skills but hopefully this is something that the community can provide.

Best,

-James

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 15:32, Simpson, Grant Leyton glsimpso@indiana.edu wrote:

Dear James,

I think these are positive changes to the bylaws. Do you or the rest of the board anticipate having problems with having enough interest in filling seats if some long-term board members must be gone for a year?

Best, Grant

On 9/6/11 10:01 AM, "James Cummings" James.Cummings@digitalmedievalist.org wrote:

...

Dear Digital Medievalist community,

At the last Digital Medievalist elections it was suggested by myself and others that we limit the number of terms any community member might be elected to the Digital Medievalist Board in a row. We already had a limit of 6 years that someone could be elected director in a row, and it seemed fitting to extend this to all Board members. i.e. after 3 two-year terms on the Board, someone would have to take a break for at least a year. The point of this is to encourage fresh blood and new ideas on the Digital Medievalist Board and promote a mature organisation. (In case anyone is wondering, I'm proposing this even though it would mean that I will not be allowed to stand in the 2012 elections.)

However, we are a community-based organisation -- if you are receiving this email you are a member of that community whether you view yourself as a digital medievalist or not -- and so we thought it best that any changes to the bylaws be approved by the community itself. But we also noticed that we had not documented the process by which we should be allowed to make amendments to our bylaws.

We have come up with a suggested process consisting of four major steps which can be summarised as:

• The DM Board composes changes to the bylaws, and a simple majority

(5 out of 8) vote means they can be presented to the membership

• The DM Board will publish these on the mailing list/website with a

minimum 10 days request for comments

• The DM Board will discuss any suggested changes, with a simple

majority agreeing any changes

• After these changes, the bylaws will be presented for voting for at

least a week and will pass with a two-thirds majority of votes recorded in the voting period.

This is the process we are following for the current proposed changes to the bylaws. A majority of the DM Board has already approved them.

The old bylaws are at:

http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/bylaws.html

The proposed bylaws with substantial additions and deletions marked are at:

http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/bylaws-new.html

We would appreciate any comments on the changes be sent to the DM Board by email at: board _at-sign_ digitalmedievalist.org by noon GMT on the 19th September 2011. Of course, you are free to discuss this openly here on the the dm-l mailing list as well.

In more detail the proposed changes to the current bylaws include:

• adding a statement "To undertake other activities relating to its

purposes and objectives or the promotion of DM as a community." to the list of our objectives and activities

• adding a statement that "Any ties in voting shall be decided by the

existing DM Board members excluding any who are standing for re-election." (While this has not yet happened, we thought it best to include some mechanism.)

• adding a statement that "No member may be elected to the DM Board

for more than three consecutive terms (six years). After three terms, the member must wait one year before becoming qualified for re-election to the DM Board."

• replacing a statement saying that "no person may serve continuously

as Director for more than 6 years in a row" with one that says "no member may be elected as Director for more than six consecutive terms (six years). After six terms, the member must wait one year before becoming qualified for re-election as Director." So that it uses the same agreed language as with Board members

• And the new section on amendments which says:

1. Amendments to these bylaws can be composed by the DM Board and

become proposed amendments with a simple majority of the total DM Board membership. 2. Proposed amendments will be published on the DM mailing list (dm-l) and the DM website with a minimum 10 day period requesting comments by the DM membership. 3. The DM Board will discuss comments on the proposed amendments received from the DM membership incorporating changes agreed by a simple majority of the DM Board. 4. The agreed version of the amended bylaws will be presented as a whole to the DM membership for voting over a minimum 7 day period. The amended version of the bylaws will pass with a two-thirds majority of votes recorded during the voting period.

I look forward to any and all comments on the proposed changes before noon on the 19th September and in the meantime the DM Board is happy to answer questions concerning them.

Many thanks,

James Cummings Director, Digital Medievalist

Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/digitalmedieval Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49320313760 Discussion list: dm-l@uleth.ca Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l

Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/digitalmedieval Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gidI320313760 Discussion list: dm-l@uleth.ca Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l