Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

social contract.  And I suggest that demotion or removal as posting member require that the docents agree on the three strikes within a certain period of time, perhaps 60 days, maybe 30 days.

I think many here occasionally get so po'd that a cheap shot is taken (and I will stipulate to that myself) and getting a strike called might help a poster get their orientation back.

I think of that as more of a policy than bylaw, but I am starting to think about implementation and enforcement.  I guess we could all sign an agreement that a Docent Enforcer would come knock on our door and pepper-spray a violater, after all, what is so bad about a little pepper-spray as a tool to manage the unruly?  But that seems a little harsh to me.

The subject is from the proposed by-laws.

Does this mean no one can post an event that charges admission? For instance I've used this space to promote shows at the 4th Ave Tav. Now someone is making a profit there, the tav and the band, I hope but not me unless you count that I get onto a guest list and don't have to pay the advertised admission. how do we parse this?

Emmett: I'm pushing the process because we have the opportunity to apply for some grants specifically targeted at citizen journalism through J-Lab coming up soon. I think we should put a proposal together that includes stipends for community reporting, and setting up CJ workstations around town so that people can upload their stuff. I'll roll out the details when I get some more time.

Merwyn: It's difficult to say exactly how many users/members we have right not, but I'd guess it's several thousand (we've been averaging that many visits per day for the last month). Only a couple of hundred seem to be actively blogging at any one time, however. We'll have to do some research and decide what seems like a reasonable number.

Mike: I like the three strikes rule. Maybe with a time window, so that six months without a strike clears the slate?

CIAGuy: I think if an event has value to the community (like music or theater) then there is no problem announcing it on the blog. In that case, the profit is indirect. More of a problem is direct marketing on the blog. I'm a little troubled by some of the recent activity of new shops advertising on the blog, but we'll have to discuss that more to decide where the line is.

More, please...

1. ELIGIBILITY Membership in OlyBlog is open to any person who meets all qualifications set forth in these bylaws and who agrees to abide by the Social Contract.

I know it wasn't spelled out, but what are the "qualifications set forth in the bylaws?" I'm assuming membership isn't limited by location, etc., but are there any limitations?

Also Rick, I'm planning on taking a class at SPSCC this winter on starting a 501(c)3. You may have information/experience with that, but if I can be of any help let me know.

Just a couple comments on this thread.

First, on the 3 strikes idea, I've got to say that personally I found Mike's 'after all what is so bad about a little pepper spray' comment to be offensive, or alienating, or mocking of those who have expressed disagreement with the recent port protests on this site. It's exactly the type of comment that tends to torque me off, but of course is not policed because it resonates with the majority of posters (or, more importantly, docents) here. In any event, I think it clearly reinforces MY belief that the enforcement here of rules, whether they be codified in a social contract or bylaws or whatever, is/will not be objective.

Second, on the idea of a c4 or endorsing candidates or issues, again, it seems that these ideas take olyblog less in the direction of allowing a lot of differing viewpoints and more in the direction of establishing ONE predominant viewpoint. Essentially creating a lobbying or political action group as opposed to maintaining a fair and level playing ground for those of all different viewpoints to discuss.

I mean, it really seems like the two ideas come together to tell me that this isn't a place for dissent or discussion, but rather just another group that welcomes all those who think like themselves.

I fear I won't be back much as a result. There are loads of Olympia organizations, formal and informal, that are super great at preaching to their own choirs. They often start out welcoming all, but quickly transform....I had hoped that olyblog was different, but what I'm seeing is that it's really turning out the same. And I just don't think that gets us anywhere.

What's with the bylaws? I thought the social contract was nice, maybe a little wordy but pretty good (I know, I could take a crack at boiling it down more, it's a wiki, etc). I like the idea that a short document like that could govern the basics of contributing. It's so small that some contributors will actually even read it! Unlike, say, the terms of service of practically every website registration ever. Refreshing.

Then you bust up my utopia with some long document in legalese! What?? Why? If there is a good reason please let me know. It's just so ugly and clunky compared to the social contract-- this is not a criticism of anyone who wrote it, just my response to the all-too-common style of it.

Maybe I'm letting it get too personal, though. I was beaten by legal documents when I was a child. Every day on the way home from school they would flail at me with long dangling clauses and sharp rigid Latin words, then they would scream exceptions and carefully ranked and categorized epithets at me and make me navigate endless bureaucratic mazes. Show you the scars.