Constitution #3
Labels
No Label
16th minute
bug
duplicate
enhancement
help wanted
invalid
question
spike
topic
devops+it
topic
documentation
topic
graphic design
topic
levels
topic
mechanics
topic
npcs
topic
performance
topic
sound design
topic
ui+ux
topic
writing
✌️tupac
wontfix
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
5 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: intrusive/docs#3
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "constitution-init"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
This pull request establishes a constitution for the Intrusive Thoughts Creative Collective. This constitution will become active as soon as this PR is accepted, subject to the terms of Article X Section 2 "Ratification".
I'd like unanimous approval before accepting this. I'll talk more about this in our next meeting.
WIP: Consitutionto WIP: ConstitutionNiamh's comments:
My responses, point-by-point:
I feel this is sufficiently covered by "undemocratic, disruptive behavior" being grounds for expulsion. If you have a better way this could be stated, please suggest it.
As discussed, we'd like more information on what this would specifically entail and the rationale behind it.
Would be great to have a procedure in place to dynamically determine the proportional vote required for a given decision, but how we would do that is beyond me. For now, I think committees including such cases in their charters is the way to go.
Anything that we think should require a two-thirds decision of the voting body to overturn. (Unless I'm misunderstanding the question?)
👍 Added in
584f7eff2e
This a (very prescient!) business concern which should be addressed if and when we incorporate as a business. The specifics will depend upon legal requirements.
Agreed 100% but as above this is a business concern and therefore out of scope for this document at this time.
👍 Agreed 100% but I want to discuss the specifics of this as a group.
This is implicitly a responsibility of the Treasurer and shouldn't be included in the constitution. The Core Infrastructure document lists the basic means of production required to operate as a collective and in principle we can function on $0 indefinitely by using free services (e.g. discord, gitlab). The requirements for practical operation are more complicated. It's the Infrastructure Committee's explicit responsibility to provision these & the Treasurer's explicit responsibility to fund, and therefore the joint responsibility of the IC & Treasurer to negotiate provisioning & procurement. Explicit procedure to do so is out of scope for this document.
We should always give cause for termination! Nothing in the expulsion criteria is unlawful grounds for termination in the state of New Mexico. When we get to the point of incorporating as a business, we'll write up an employment contract form-letter and I'd imagine treat the constitution as an effective employee handbook, and we'll get a lawyer to tell us if we need to make any constitutional amendments as prerequisite for incorporation.
👍 Added in
9c21bf1041
👍 100% agreed. The exact nature of how the Infrastructure Committee should handle red-team exercises should be determined as a policy of the Infrastructure Committee, so I've added an IC charter document in
be6e6b0a1b
👍 As discussed, we've expanded recall policy to include appointed positions (e.g. Personnel & Infrastructure Committee members) in
2de0ce1f69
.Perhaps, but not here. Engineering, Creative, and Business committees are kept deliberately vague. The purpose of all three is to broadly define a body to address shared concerns at a discipline level. There will always be many many gray areas of overlap within a project (Is the creation of marketing materials Creative or Business? Is level design Engineering or Creative?) to the extent that I believe explicitly defining responsibilities within the constitution would do more harm than good. Such situations where a shared concern overlapping multiple committees must be addressed at the committee level can and should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
In the interest of getting us all on the same page, let me paint you a very high-level picture of how all three discipline-level committees work together:
To give you a (non-exhaustive!) list of specific jobs handled by the Business Committee:
But like I said, this list is non-exhaustive, and frankly, I am CERTAIN there are real tangible concerns of operating a game studio as a business that I am not personally capable of imagining, nor is anybody else here. Explicitly laying out a definition of what is or is not a "business concern" in the constitution would provide no benefit and will only be a problem down the road.
@ -0,0 +441,4 @@
## Article VIII. Collective Ownership
### Sec 1. Collective Property
I'm a little concerned about maintaining a division between personal IP and collective IP; I'm not suggesting that I want to retain rights to something used by the collective, but I don't want to accidentally, implicitly, transfer rights by offering an anecdote from a personal project during a brainstorming session. I'm not sure, however, that there's any cleaner way to deal with the issue than not to share such an anecdote.
I agree. I really hate the typical software company IP agreements -- y'know, where you get five lines to list every idea you've ever had, and everything else now legally belongs to your employer. I want to embed a policy of respecting individual members' lives outside the collective into the constitution, and that includes rights to personal IP. The idea with the Collective Property section is to establish a very permissive IP policy right from the start. To that end, I wouldn't be terribly opposed to making it more permissive -- I'll follow up with some ideas on that in the chat.
That said, the collective needs to own its own intellectual property, because we need to prepare the collective to exist as a legal entity within a legal system that believes in and enforces private ownership of intellectual property. That's why I think we need to assert in clear terms from the start that "something is owned by the Collective" and "something is collectively owned by the members of the collective body" are equivalent terms. Whenever we incorporate, we'll want an IP lawyer to look over this and tell me that I'm an idiot and all of this means nothing, then tell us how to actually write it.
(yes, I still think the entire idea of "intellectual property" is deeply puerile and idiotic. unfortunately we live in a world that is also puerile and idiotic and thinks ideas can be owned by people.)
How do you feel about the updated version as of
8ccb8ceb9b
?I suppose I should say something in addition to marking the conversation resolved. I think we've worked out my concerns; basically we're now asking to explicitly assign rights to the collective at the outset of related work.
I think the "IP agreement is structured around projects" looks good for now. I still think it would be nice long term to have some kind of policy or best practice down the line of when someone decides that an idea they have "thrown out there" is actually something they want to exclusively keep; That they inform the collective so we can remove it from our idea pool.
I know we talked about it last meeting, and this might be a later issue, but just wanted bring up the idea of minimum time off.
@baer While I share your opinions on a minimum time off policy, I’m going to push for delaying discussion of time off policy & most other issues that would fall under the category of “employee policy” until we consider legal incorporation as a business. After all, how can we institute a time off policy when we don’t even have a time on policy?
WIP: Constitutionto Constitution