[NA-Discuss] Changes to OP

[Evan Leibovitch]

Thompson, Darlene wrote:

> Further to the thoughts below, I would like to propose that we need to
> make some changes to our Operating Principals.  Things are coming up now
> that we never envisioned when we agreed to the OP.
> [...]
> This is what I would like to suggest, anyways.
>   
My personal response to this is an enthusiastic "yes, but...". Every
single one of Darlene's points is valid, however...

We've barely voted on the original MOU/OP. While it's natural that we
will find flaws and accidental omissions, I am scared to death of being
locked into forever debating our core documents while our actual reasons
for being here (policy, increasing the voice and influence of at-large)
threaten to get sidelined (or at least at a lower priority than they
should be IMO).

Frankly, I was stunned to see that the ALAC -- with a long head start
over NARALO -- is still debating things such as "how to pick a chair" or
"how to conduct a proper vote for its Board rep". THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIVIA that must not consume the group for it to be effective.

To this end, I suggest a semi-annual review of the OP as a standing
agenda item. We collect the various issues that come up, and debate them
every six months as a single set of amendments. This allows for a
(reasonably) timely and regular review of how we work, while giving the
review a fixed context that prevents operational details from dominating
the day-to-day work.

This is just a suggestion, that has worked for me in other groups. In no
way am I belittling Darlene's suggestions, but would like to at least
have the ink dry on the existing documents before we start changing
them. A little forced pause between OP modifications may even help help
the debate, by forcing extra thought on changes that may be too hasty or
based on short-term problems.

If there are issues that MUST be dealt with immediately, let's do it.
I'm not convinced that anything on Darlene's list can't wait until a
review. (If having Spanish as an official language was time-sensitive,
it should have been raised in the original doc.) Let's try to make the
existing OP work before demonstrating that it needs fixing.

- Evan