Doing some work on the #forktogether bylaws with @PaulFerence

We’ve added a placeholder section for ‘location’ and are currently working on rewriting “Purpose” to be a bit more fleshed out

Current bullet points are:
- Encourage positive community engagement
- Minimize harassment
- Adoption of WCAG 3.0 standards
- Encourage a diverse board, user, and coding group

With a disclaimer that the section may be updated as Location requires (non-profit qualification criteria are often specific and may require adoption of specific points)

Full text of each bullet point to follow :) #forktogether

Encourage positive community engagement. Allowing individuals to find the community that best suits them, providing information and training for community admins and moderators in how to handle various situations, and keeping all of the administrators on a central bcc mailing list to keep them updated on progress with the <NAME MISSING> group.

Minimize harassment. <NAME MISSING> is committed to reducing harassment, through building privacy-focused social media, focusing on community mediation, and strictly enforcing our CoC.

Adoption of WCAG 3.0 standards. The accessibility standards will be updated to meet current WCAG standards, and will be updated along with any standard changes made in the future by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

Encourage a diverse board, user, and coding group. To encourage diversity amongst our board, we will not allow a majority of a single gender or race to hold a position on the board. In the case where a person would be added, but it would violate the majority rule, this person will be skipped and the next viable candidate will be approved. It is our hope that via our example, our communities and our coders will show the same openness.

The diversity section may very well have to be rewritten, depending on location etc, but I think the general gist of the whole thing’s pretty solid :)

Time of operation and auditor sections have gotten the same disclaimer as location

We’re still discussing how community mediation should be handled in the bylaws. Right now leaning towards leave all of that kinda thing in the CoC besides a basic ‘we can eject members or take other actions if they break the rules laid out in our governance documents’ but theres definitely value to explicitly including stuff in the bylaws as well

For reference theres four potential edits at the top of the talk page that i’m referring to here: https://forktogether.space/mw/Talk:Bylaws#Community_Mediator_Discussion

Both general comments on the concept and specific critiques on the phrasing are welcome, either here or via the talk page :)

#forktogther

Theres been a note saying we need to specify what happens in event of a tie up in the right to vote section basically since the first draft of the bylaws, we’re attempting to resolve it now

@PaulFerence suggested chairperson of the meeting breaks ties, but then during ties their vote either counts twice, or they wouldn’t be able to vote the rest of the time