On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 01:13:22PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:

 (a) The older FSA's have a bug that Tony discovered when he came to
     work for Conservancy.  Specifically, they don't have a clear
     hand-off from the original signatories of the FSA to the
     Project's Leadership Committee.  Ideally, the Signatories cede
     their authority to the Committee, so we don't have to bug
     former committee members with getting signatures if they decide
     to move on from the project.  The new FSA template fixes this.

 (c) Now might be a good time to update the Representation section
     of the FSA.  Right now, as you see from (0) above, it requires
     explicit resignations to change the Committee, and perhaps that
     is too burdensome and problematic, particularly for people who
     have moved on from the project.  Conservancy can work with you
     to redrafted the Representation section to better reflect your
     current realities of leadership.  As you see in the template,
     there a few suggestions of how to draft Representation
     sections.

Yes, can you draft up replacement text for the 'Representation of the Project in the Conservancy' section?

I'm gathering that we need the bit about the "signatories shall initially comprise..." and the text about removing and adding members to cover the bug you mentioned? That seems fairly uncontroversial and basically matches how I think we all assume the board is supposed to work.

I notice there is text about handling the case where a committee member (or the committee in large) becomes unreachable. Something like that sounds worthwhile to add, although we probably should vote on that.

I've already called for a vote on giving 10% of revenues to the Conservancy. One question I have is that the text says "earmarked revenue". What does "earmarked" mean in this context?

Aside from the above, are there any other significant points in the new template we should consider, particularly ones that would require voting on?

I see some changes are just shuffling sections around and refactoring verbage. I think once the above points have all gotten voted on, a re-drafting of the FSA would be in order, which can include reformatting and textual refactoring as you see fit. Then probably one more vote on the final product.

I suppose this redrafting will require everyone re-signing it?

Bryce