Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

This page is currently not in much use. It was the home page for the SEPP (now SPP): Strategy and Advocacy space. This is where governance ideas were considered. It will be updated in the next few days with the current version of the bylaws. It does provide now a good history of the discussion. JH

Here is where the Draft Sakai Foundation Bylaws - Discussion Document resides.

Weekly Phone Discussion at 317-278-8167. Every week for the next 6 weeks we'll be holding an open phone call for discussion of the Sakai Foundation Bylaws. The time is Wednesday 1pm to 2pm eastern (GMT -4). JH

A new version of the Sakai Foundation Bylaws, version 0.7, is posted as an MSWord attachment to the Draft Sakai Foundation Bylaws - Discussion Document page (scroll down there to see it).

A new version of the Draft Sakai Foundation Bylaws, version 0.6, is posted as an MSWord attachment on the Draft Sakai Foundation Bylaws - Discussion Document page (scroll down there to see it). It was posted on September 6th and reflects the most recent conversations with counsel. The changes include modifications to section 6.10 (now section 6.11) requiring unanimous consent to decisions made by the board in lieu of a meeting, as required by Michigan corporation law. Section 6.12 was moved to become 6.10 for readability. In section 7.2 the Chair and ViceChair are also called President and VicePresident, again to match up with legal practice. Section 6.3b now requires the board meet at least twice a year, again legally required, and a good idea. And in section 6.1, the board is defined as the "governing" as well as the "administrative" body of the Sakai Foundation. That also reflects legal practice and the document's intent. 12.2 now requires that those with check signing ability for the foundation be bonded. Some other typos were fixed. More language changes may come as the lawyers suggest things. A revision based on the discussion here (some suggestions have been made for cleaning up the mission statement in section 3.2, for instance) will be put up early next week. I don't think any of these changes in version 0.6 or those suggested for the mission statement affect the options in Article VI that have been the focus of most all of the discussion. JHardin

Important reading on Governance includes:

Conference Position Papers

The papers written by Sakai Partners for the Baltimore Conference in June 2005.

Conference Consensus

The results of the day-long discussion on governance issues at Baltimore synopsized by Clay Fenlason.

See also all the various threads below under Governance, including the comments on the recent Governance Part II topic.

The most current discussion surrounds the Draft Sakai Foundation Bylaws - Discussion Document

You can join this discussion by commenting on the document directly (go to the bottom of the Draft Sakai Foundation Bylaws - Discussion Document doc and fill in the form), or emailing to the mailing list. If you find your mail bounces, or you just want to get the email discussion, then you need to join the group at
To get a login to the Confluence site (where you are reading this) go to and fill in the form, then come back here. With such a login, your comments will have your name associated with them.
We'll be putting up some pages off the Draft Sakai Foundation Bylaws - Discussion Document page to manage more focused discussion as this unfolds, and to capture the email discussion here. An MSWord version of the Bylaws Discussion Document is also attached below. If you have any questions, drop Mary Miles (mmiles 'at' a note.
If you would like to help shepherd this conversation by doing regular synopses of the online and email discussions related to a particular area (say, Foundation Purposes and Mission - section 3.1 in the Bylaws, or Board Elections - sections 6.x), drop Joseph a note at hardin 'at'


  • No labels


  1. There are many documents, conference notes, email threads, etc. that are posted or been circulated about our future governance. It is very hard, even for the dedicated of us, to keep up, let alone analyze, synthesize, and propose the new future in this way. I think it is important for us all to stay aware of the fact that we are often in new territory and struggling to define and communicate across different vocabularies and drivers. I would very much like to see more of these discussions take place via VTC. I think this could help us get the point much more quickly, do some exploration in real time, and then synthesize and document.

    Any interest in this?

    1. I'm interested ... but I have to admit that I often prefer the text-based exchanges. It's precisely because this is new territory that I prefer to mull over the stakes and implications before shooting my mouth off. I don't find it easy to navigate the issues ex tempore. The text-based exchanges ultimately better allow me to say what I really wish to say while allowing people to get to the end of their points without interruption.

      I might suggest a balance, then. Where VTC seems called for we might precede it with a detailed agenda, or perhaps the old "position paper" introduction (although perhaps more informally), just to get the juices flowing. If I join a governance VTC unprepared you're likely to get a lot of dead air from my mike as I ruminate.

      1. Agreed – a balance is definitely necessary. I find that having this balance of reflection time and documents combined with discussion and collaborative action items tends to lead to more results. If we are all thinking about things at different paces, with no real milestones or pathways for working through sticky issues it is easy to start spinning our wheels.