Hello All, Just picking up on the post from Tijani.
I think for the Fundamental Bylaws modification, the Board (or the community) proposes the modification In case the community proposes the modification It should go through the escalation process we described for the other powers to trigger the modification process, consult about its pertinence, formulate the proposal and then decide to submit the proposal, but perhaps with other thresholds then, and if the board accepts the proposal, it will put it to public comment In case the Board is the trigger of the modification, the community should go through the escalation process to approve or reject the proposal.
Practically for the creation or change of fundamental bylaws, I expect the Board would run the following process: - post the proposed bylaw or change to existing bylaw for public comment - seek direct input from each SO and AC on whether they support that change - only approve the change if there is the relevant level of support from the SOs and ACs I understand that the community power could be an escalation if somehow the Board approves a change without first getting input from the SOs and ACs - but I think that situation will be highly unlikely. Board approval is usually a final step - and essentially the Board approves when it is convinced there is a consensus in the community for the change. Also as I have noted before - it is rare if ever (I can't recall a case) that the Board ever initiates a bylaw change on its own. The change has usually come as a result of a community process - e.g. a policy recommendation from a SO, a recommendation from a cross-community working group, a recommendation from an AoC review team, or a recommendation from one of our other organizational reviews. Regards, Bruce Tonkin