Proposed Revised Bylaws for Discussion – 2018 – Archived

Discussion on these proposed Bylaws will be open from 8/26/18 through 9/4/18. The Board will meet again on 9/5/18 to vote on adoption.

Click here to view the proposed Bylaws

Use the comment section below for discussion.

17 thoughts on “Proposed Revised Bylaws for Discussion – 2018 – Archived”

  1. Ill be the first to speak up. Combing build and security is a mistake. These jobs are largely unrelated.

    The reason for having 10 seats was to encourage diversity of the board. The theory was there wasnt enough interest to fill the board positions but that has proven not true. We will have a full board for 2019. I think limiting us to these 5 seats would be a hindrance more then anything.

    1. I appreciate that, Tootsie, and I understand. Bear in mind we will not be limited to five seats at this election. That might not happen until two years from now. It depends on a number of factors.

      We feel that we may have gotten very lucky this year as far as filling the seats, and in all honesty, nine members still feels like too much given the scope of Second Pride. There was a time that it may have fit, but we’re just not what we were then. It’s hard not to believe that the decline in growth of membership in Second Pride and Second Life overall will continue, and that two years from now it will be even harder to fill the seats.

      Also, the Board members are not supposed to be the only “do’ers”. They should be leaders, coordinating others, and delegating some of the responsibility to committees/individuals. Honestly, the Infrastructure Director might not be a builder at all, but if they can find and retain the services of a good builder, then they’re doing what the job entails, as much as if they did the building themselves. So you can’t think of if that the person in that seat has to actually do the security and do the build. They just have to oversee it, budget it, report on it, etc. Certainly, they are welcome to perform as much of the task as they are willing and able to do, but that doesn’t mean do everything.

      And lastly, the sitting Board always has the option to modify the Bylaws again. If, two years from now, the Board is still full and interest has stayed high, nothing says these Bylaws can’t be altered to leave the Board as it is. Right now, it just seems the right track for the future.

      I hope that helps.

      1. Hmm. That’s an interesting discussion.

        On one hand, the difference between having seperate directors and one director with, so to speak, volunteer subdirectors is trivial. On the other hand, there is the matter of political responsibility. Without trying to scratch wounds, and speaking as gently as I can, I feel obliged to remind of certain volunteers that managed to make a mess of everything, overtook responsibilities assigned to them, but at the same time were not controlled by the popular vote, nor by the board (who decided to say, one year ago exactly, “who gives a flying fuck, my tenure is ending, I’m on my way to go”).

        So, assume that the volunteer “subdirector” for building is a twat, and assume that the director for security and building simply doesn’t care enough to put the twat down. What happens then? If that person was voted by the people, then an election would happen and the majority would take care of it (of course, that could take a while if the twat had, say, another year of tenure). Can the current board assure us that such a circumstance would be resolved quickly and to the bone? (I know that in the example we all have in mind it happened.)

        Now, as to the merging of events, community and marketing I agree; the three are well connected. To the merging of secretary and finances I also agree, because the secretary doesn’t do much other than being second to the chairman and taking care of bureocratical issues (it would be worse if we had a vice-chairman too). But building and security are still different things, the only thing connecting them being responsibility over the land. Could the board elaborate on that?

        1. One more short complaint. I understand that yesterday’s meeting was not too important to attend, since no decision was to be made during it. Still, it was announced merely twenty four hours ahead. Some of who wanted to attend couldn’t, because we had things to do planned weeks in advance. Could the board commit that —at least important— meetings will not be announced at the last moment? Thank you 🙂

          1. The first announcement (by group notice) for the noon SLT 8/25/18 meeting went out on 8/23/18 at 8:33 am SLT…more than 48 hours before the meeting.

        2. While I can’t speak specifically for each Board member, I think the best response I can give to this is that the Membership will always be heard, at least under the existing Board, and I am confident that won’t change under the full Board that will be seated shortly. Speaking personally, I believe that the seated Board and all of our candidates are participating with the hope of continuing to put the drama of the past behind us. That is certainly the goal of the revised Bylaws.

          If members come to a meeting with concerns about ANYTHING, we will hear those concerns, investigate the situation, and take action as needed. Members are also welcome at any time to contact any member of the Board privately, which would also likely result in the calling of a special meeting, or a closed meeting for the full Board to hear the concerns in an official setting. In other words, you don’t have to wait for a scheduled meeting to voice a concern and have it addressed.

  2. Tootsie and Jimmy, Thank you for taking your time to read and respond with your concerns regarding the revised Bylaws. When I became Chair, one of the “missions” I had was to review and revamp the Bylaws, as they were no longer fitting for the institution of Second Pride. They were overly cumbersome and in some cases just undoable.

    As everyone knows it has been a very long time since Second Pride has had a full board. I have been around SL for over 10 years and I believe this is actually the first time I have seen this. Personally, this is overwhelmingly positive. However, I am a realist and I am not sure that the interest will last. Tootsie you remember the Director that was elected last year and quit when they found out that the work wasn’t just for fame and having your name/company associated with Second Pride. Limiting the number of board members gives Second Pride the flexibility and hopefully, stability for the future.

    The combining of the different departments makes sense in the that it combines several overlapping responsibilities under one umbrella. Infrastructure, as an example, may not seem like they have anything in common. Building and security, the proposed Infrastructure Director have the purview of making sure the sim and all it’s builds are safe and secure. They fit nicely together.

    Its a change, that is hoped, to assist the institution of Second Pride be ready for the future. As Lee pointed out, if future boards determine that they need to change the structure, they only need to update the Bylaws to fit the current and future state of Second Pride.
    Streamlining the Board, in my opinion, is the right move based on history. It’s a bold step. It may backfire, but it may also encourage more participation from the membership. As a former “Assistant” once said, “I want to help all I can I just don’t want to be part of the politics.”

    To address your concern Jimmy, the Board will always retain the right to remove anyone from the membership and even from the sitting Board. It is in the Bylaws and it should remain into the future. If there are issues, they should be brought to the boards attention immediately. Preferably in a private setting if possible, so that the board may discuss and investigate any issues that come up prior to making rash emotional decisions. To your other point, it is on me that we called the meeting with short notice. We always try to make sure the meeting is announced well in advance. As you well know. I am human and get distracted. Going forward, I will try to do better.

    I hope this addresses the questions at hand. Please encourage all your fellow Second Pride Members to review and comment if necessary on the proposed Bylaws. They are here not only to guide, but protect the Second Pride organization.

    Rez Vale-Starfall
    Chairman of the Board

  3. I feel the combining of the Director’s positions is a bold move but at the same time very efficient. If I understand correctly from each director, there are committees that the director oversees. Now each director just has the one committee but in 2020 that would be different. It could end up being a LOT of work for a Director or be a good balance.

    Hopefully in 2019 we will get a good idea of what we will be expecting for 2020.

  4. Like Tootsie and Dee, I was at first surprised by the combining of 7 director positions into three.

    Firstly, the combination of Secretary/Treasurer seems the most natural of the suggested combinations and I think the rolls can meld easily. The other two combinations seem more worrisome to me.

    Secondly, as Tootsie has already said, the rolls of the Build and Security directors are extremely different, and I know of only two people with that combination of specialized skills that are more than “amateurish”. Even if you have specialized committees, you need some knowledge to be able to lead them without putting yourself entirely in the hands of the committees.

    Thirdly, the combination of Events/Community Relations/Marketing would entail an immense workload, especially working up to the yearly Festival. Also, if the new board really means to improve contacts and communications with those parts of our community that so far have a weak or non-existent relationship to Second Pride I believe we need a CR who is solely dedicated to that task all year round.

    After having pointed out the risks I see with these suggestions I, however, fully understand the motivation for the proposal’s suggestion of decreasing the number of directors. As both Lee and Rez have stated, there is nothing stopping future amendments to the bylaws if a future board see’s the need to do so.

    I would also like to bring up to discussion Article IV, section 3, points 2-3, the limation of the number of terms a director may serve. Although I know that this is a particularly American rule for higher political offices (like presidents and governors) I don’t really see the need for it in an organization like Second Pride, neither are they in accordance with any standards outside the U.S.A. I would, therefore, suggest that term-limitations are removed from the proposal completely.

    1. Hi Bock!

      The hope is that the Outreach Director (combination of Events, Marketing, and Community Relations) would rely very heavily on committees and individuals to meet the requirements of the role. And we would absolutely like to see people that may have considered a seat on the Board in one of those positions serving on those committees or individual roles. Hopefully, for some, it would reduce the pressure of having to deal with “Board business” and allow them to focus on the tasks at hand. This also potentially allows for more people to be involved in some of these tasks than previous structures. You could conceivably have two or three people working on events at the same time, should we be so lucky to have the volunteers!

      On the matter of term limits, the new Bylaws now state that if term limits will prevent a seat from being filled, the previous candidate may continue in the role. In other words, if the Treasurer is at the end of his limit, and at the next election there are no candidates for the seat, they may continue as an uncontested candidate and be seated for another year. There is no limit on how many times this could occur. The new Bylaws also extend the limit to a full four years (two terms of two years each).

      Hope this helps!

      1. Hey Lee,

        As I said in my earlier post, I am worried but I have accepted the combination of the directorships with the understanding that a future board can make amendments if it is deemed necessary.

        Concerning the term limits, I have understood that the terms have been vastly extended and that there are special rules in place in every other situation. However, I still maintain that term limits for board positions in an organization like Second Pride are excessive and completely unnecessary. (Without the term limits, some of the statutes concerning who can and when and in which situation can also be stricken.)

  5. I like the idea of bold moves — I certainly do many of those in my life. After reading the comments, some of the changes seem based on the past, using that history to build for the future. It’s a thoughtful move but for many folks having an opportunity to serve on the Second Pride Board is an honor and way of serving their community. Although previous years may not have seen as much interest and participation, this year should be viewed as an example to identify those areas that created increased attention and awareness and desire from many folks to participate …

    Just some observations for the board to consider


    These are vastly different roles. While it makes sense to have a single director oversee security from a structural management perspective, the workload of those duties seems an over burdensome expectation for second life. Security in all respects functions more successfully if held in a fashion that is independent and holding a board seat provides that independence along with that director having the ability to build a team devoted not just to a specific event, host or session but rather the entire Second Pride community. The building director’s functions in building out a sim will be time intensive, even with collaboration from teams anyone functioning in that role would be challenged to manage the duties not just of planning, designing and building a sim but then also managing security for events.

    Event Director – Combined into Outreach Director – (REQUEST TO CONSIDER – MAINTAIN EVENT DIRECTOR AS SEPARATE BOARD SEAT)

    Similar to above, the combination of the three roles into the outreach director makes sense. However seeking out sponsorship, creating community awareness along with managing marketing are significant and time intensive duties. The coordination of events is near a full time job for an event the size of Second Pride. This role seems reasonable as one that would have a higher level of success maintained separate from the outreach director position.


    I would suggest removing term limits from board positions. Maintaining open elections in two year cycles provides opportunity for change. The rational for imposing a term limit seems based on standard not necessarily applicable to Second Pride. If a board member is serving their duties and performing well there should be no reason why that member could not run again after two consecutive terms.

    • A Board Member may run for re-election at the end of their term, but may only serve two (2)
    consecutive terms in the same position UNLESS no other candidates register for that seat by the time
    the discussion phase of the election starts. At that time, the former Board Member may register as an
    uncontested candidate for that seat, and will only remain seated until the next Election, which will
    follow the same rules.
    • A Board Member, having served two (2) terms in the same seat, may run for any other open seat in the
    next election without restriction.

Comments are closed.