Child pages
  • Article IV Discussion Page
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

This is the page for discussion of the Sakai Foundation's Qualification and Application for Membership. Go to the bottom of the page to add a comment, or a response to some else's comment. You can also send your ideas around to the advocacy@collab.sakaiproject.org maillist to solicit responses. Every few days or so, depending on traffic, the discussion surrounding the topics on this page will be synopsized here and sent around to the advocacy list. If the topic on this page is of real interest to you, you may want to click the 'watch this page' button on the right.

ARTICLE IV Qualification and Application for Membership

4.1 Membership.

Membership in Sakai is open to academic and research organizations and commercial organizations and institutions with programs and missions consistent with the purposes of Sakai as set forth in Articles II and III and may include colleges and universities, research and development centers, membership organizations, and other nonprofit organizations, and for-profit organizations, provided that applications for membership must show that the organization:
(a) has goals and purposes consistent with the goals and purposes of the Sakai Foundation to the satisfaction of a majority of the Sakai Board members present at the meeting at which the applicant's membership is considered, based on the applicant's application, bylaws, mission statement, and similar evidence,
(b) agrees to pay membership fees and dues as specified by the Sakai Board, and
(c) designates an Organizational Representative to the Sakai Foundation
1. Organizational Representatives serve at the pleasure of their organizations, and may be changed by their organization at any time, with 30 days notice to the Sakai Board

4.2 Applications.

Applications for membership shall be forwarded to the Executive Director under the signature of an appropriate administrative officer of the institution or organization seeking membership and shall include a description of the institution's or organization's present programs and future plans in support of education and research related to open source code software development and efforts to support collaboration, education and research software. The application must describe how the institution will contribute to the objectives of Sakai and should include descriptions of any relevant programs, research, commercial offerings, community offerings and public service activities contributing to the advancement of open source code software for education and the broader Sakai Community. Members are subject to a review of these qualifications every year.

4.3 Removal from Membership

An institution or organization shall cease to be a voting member upon failure to pay dues and shall be dropped from the membership roster upon failure to pay dues by the end of the membership year. The membership of any member may also be terminated by the Board of Directors upon a two- thirds vote of the members of the board present at the meeting at which termination is considered, provided that at least sixty days' notice of the intent to consider such action at such meeting must be given. Additionally, all members are subject to review of their qualifications every year. Evidence that the institution or organization continues to meet the membership qualifications must be presented to the Board of Directors or its delegate. If the member no longer meets the qualifications in the view of the Board of Directors, the member shall be given an opportunity to show that it continues to meet the qualifications. If it cannot do so, its membership shall be terminated at the end of the year. Any gap in membership status, whether for failure to pay dues, resignation, or otherwise, requires payment of the annual membership fee before reinstitution.

  • No labels

5 Comments

  1. "The membership of any member may also be terminated by the Board of Directors upon a two- thirds vote of the members of the board present at the meeting at which termination is considered, provided that at least sixty days' notice of the intent to consider such action at such meeting must be given."

    I am not sure of the intent of this. What was your thinking on why it is necessary to include this? What would/could a member do that would cause the board to consider this?

    1. I think it quite likely that this will never happen, but I think it's also important to allow yourself the option by making it clear in the by-laws. To the extent that there is a community, there are also behaviors that can be destructive of that community, and I think it's conceivable that we might want to break ties with a commercial affiliate or institution.

  2. I think Clay has it exactly correct. Hopefully it will never be used. The hurdles are high so that it won't be used willfully.

  3. 4.3: "all members are subject to review of their qualifications every year. Evidence that the institution or organization continues to meet the membership qualifications must be presented to the Board of Directors or its delegate. If the member no longer meets the qualifications in the view of the Board of Directors, the member shall be given an opportunity to show that it continues to meet the qualifications."

    Seems to me this will produce more red tape than member appropriateness control, which I assume is the motivation. I suggest the wording be changed so that the Board at any time may request evidence from a member institution or organisation to present proof of its qualifications. This would suitably be done when the Board, by simple majority, deems it necessary to investigate an institution's status within the organisatoin for some reason.

    The annual "general investigation" seems to be over-reaching.

    1. Unknown User (pmcquesten@calstate.edu)

      I agree with the red tape conclusion and support the suggested wording change. Rather than have the 99% + of the membership prepare and submit whatever is deemed necessary for qualification review and the exec committee or Board spend hours of time reviewing the submissions, simply target the 1% or less of the membership that the Board deems worthy of review for whatever reason.

      Excessive regulation and mandated compliance can quickly kill the positive energy of a community. My suggestion would be to focus on keeping the overhead low and encouraging member activities that contribute real value to the ongoing Sakai effort.