Search Results

Search found 3208 results on 129 pages for 'members'.

Page 10/129 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • Java regex patterns - compile time constants or instance members?

    - by KepaniHaole
    Currently, I have a couple of singleton objects where I'm doing matching on regular expressions, and my Patterns are defined like so: class Foobar { private final Pattern firstPattern = Pattern.compile("some regex"); private final Pattern secondPattern = Pattern.compile("some other regex"); // more Patterns, etc. private Foobar() {} public static Foobar create() { /* singleton stuff */ } } But I was told by someone the other day that this is bad style, and Patterns should always be defined at the class level, and look something like this instead: class Foobar { private static final Pattern FIRST_PATTERN = Pattern.compile("some regex"); private static final Pattern SECOND_PATTERN = Pattern.compile("some other regex"); // more Patterns, etc. private Foobar() {} public static Foobar create() { /* singleton stuff */ } } The lifetime of this particular object isn't that long, and my main reason for using the first approach is because it doesn't make sense to me to hold on to the Patterns once the object gets GC'd. Any suggestions / thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to use the same name for arguments and members?

    - by stijn
    Sometimes I write constructor code like class X { public: X( const int numberOfThingsToDo ) : numberOfThingsToDo( numberOfThingsToDo ) { } private: int numberOfThingsToDo; }; or in C# class X { public X( int numberOfThingsToDo ) { this.numberOfThingsToDo = numberOfThingsToDo; } private int numberOfThingsToDo; } I think the main reason is that when I come up with a suitable member name, I see no reason to use a different one for the argument initializing it, and since I'm also no fan of using underscores the easiest is just to pick the same name. After all it's suitable. Is this considered bad practice however? Any drawbacks (apart from shooting yourself in the foot when forgetting the this in C#)?

    Read the article

  • Prefer class members or passing arguments between internal methods?

    - by geoffjentry
    Suppose within the private portion of a class there is a value which is utilized by multiple private methods. Do people prefer having this defined as a member variable for the class or passing it as an argument to each of the methods - and why? On one hand I could see an argument to be made that reducing state (ie member variables) in a class is generally a good thing, although if the same value is being repeatedly used throughout a class' methods it seems like that would be an ideal candidate for representation as state for the class to make the code visibly cleaner if nothing else. Edit: To clarify some of the comments/questions that were raised, I'm not talking about constants and this isn't relating to any particular case rather just a hypothetical that I was talking to some other people about. Ignoring the OOP angle for a moment, the particular use case that I had in mind was the following (assume pass by reference just to make the pseudocode cleaner) int x doSomething(x) doAnotherThing(x) doYetAnotherThing(x) doSomethingElse(x) So what I mean is that there's some variable that is common between multiple functions - in the case I had in mind it was due to chaining of smaller functions. In an OOP system, if these were all methods of a class (say due to refactoring via extracting methods from a large method), that variable could be passed around them all or it could be a class member.

    Read the article

  • SharePoint Lookup Becomes Free Only For MS ASP.net Members Now! Do Not Miss It!

    SharePoint Lookup Boost becomes free now for picked users!It was charged 251$ for 50 end uers! This web part provides an overview page to list all information related to an item. Below are its detailed features: A "Related Information" link on Context Menu of SharePoint item to an overview page displaying all connected information of the item; Display all items from which this item looks up information; Display all items which look up information from this item. To download this web part,...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Algorithm to tell if two arrays have identical members.

    - by nickf
    What's the best algorithm for comparing two arrays to see if they have the same members? Assume there are no duplicates, the members can be in any order, and that neither is sorted. compare( [a, b, c, d], [b, a, d, c] ) ==> true compare( [a, b, e], [a, b, c] ) ==> false compare( [a, b, c], [a, b] ) ==> false

    Read the article

  • relaxng schema - use attributes for members and elements for structures?

    - by rpkrpk
    For a data-binding application, I am trying to draw parallels among RelaxNG, C++ and C. RelaxNG.Elements === C++.Class === C.Struct RelaxNG.Attributes === C++.class-members === C.structure-members Only that the Elements in RelaxNG can also have a data-type (i.e. it seems Attribute is a special case of the Element). Do I have the above equivalence correct? If I use the above convention in my implementation, will I be breaking some data-binding libraries?

    Read the article

  • Is it a bad programming practise to have "Public" members inside an "Internal" class?

    - by Amby
    I mean, won;t it be more specific and appropriate if i "only" keep "protected","internal" and "private" members (field,method,property,event) in a class which is declared as "internal" ? I have seen this practice ( having "public" members in an "internal" class) in various code so just wanted to know is it a bad practice or does it has some benefit or advantage. [Only concerned about C#] Thanks for your interest.

    Read the article

  • Is it a bad programming practice to have "Public" members inside an "Internal" class?

    - by Amby
    I mean, won;t it be more specific and appropriate if i "only" keep "protected","internal" and "private" members (field,method,property,event) in a class which is declared as "internal" ? I have seen this practice ( having "public" members in an "internal" class) in various code so just wanted to know is it a bad practice or does it has some benefit or advantage. [Only concerned about C#] Thanks for your interest.

    Read the article

  • Why can't I get properties from members of this collection?

    - by Lunatik
    I've added some form controls to a collection and can retrieve their properties when I refer to the members by index. However, when I try to use any properties by referencing members of the collection I see a 'Could not set the ControlSource property. Member not found.' error in the Locals window. Here is a simplified version of the code: 'Add controls to collection' For x = 0 To UBound(tabs) activeTabs.Add Item:=Form.MultiPage.Pages(Val(tabs(x, 1))), _ key:=Form.MultiPage.Pages(Val(tabs(x, 1))).Caption Next x 'Check name using collection index' For x = 0 To UBound(tabs) Debug.Print "Tab name from index: " & activeTabs(x + 1).Caption Next x 'Check name using collection members' For Each formTab In activeTabs Debug.Print "Tab name from collection: " & formTab.Caption Next formTab The results in the Immediate window are: Tab name from index: Caption1 Tab name from index: Caption2 Tab name from collection: Tab name from collection: Why does one method work and the other fail? This is in a standard code module, but I have similar code working just fine from within form modules. Could this have anything to do with it?

    Read the article

  • Why does Google's closure library not use real private members?

    - by Thor Thurn
    I've been a JavaScript developer for a while now, and I've always thought that the correct way to implement private members in JavaScript is to use the technique outlined by Doug Crockford here: http://javascript.crockford.com/private.html. I didn't think this was a particularly controversial piece of JavaScript wisdom, until I started using the Google Closure library. Imagine my surprise... the library makes no effort to use Crockford-style information hiding. All they do is use a special naming convention and note "private" members in the documentation. I'm in the habit of assuming that the guys at Google are usually on the leading edge of software quality, so what gives? Is there some downside to following Mr. Crockford's advice that's not obvious?

    Read the article

  • The Best solution to sending emails to group members in a social network.

    - by praveen
    I'm developing a social network in php. There is a feature to create custom groups by members and i want to enable the owner of the group to send emails in bulk to all group members. And most importantly i want to make sure that most mails are not going to end up in users' SPAM list. I'm using PHPMailer in my website What should be the best and affordable approach? These are the solutions i came up with. Pls include your own if possible. Using my servers' (hostgator.com) given SMTP server to send emails in bulk Using google apps SMTP (i have even setup SPF for this) Using a third-party to handle my outgoing messages (i.e: mailChimp, iContact ? do they provide APIs ? this is just my idea) Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • The Changing Face of PASS

    - by Bill Graziano
    I’m starting my sixth year on the PASS Board.  I served two years as the Program Director, two years as the Vice-President of Marketing and I’m starting my second year as the Executive Vice-President of Finance.  There’s a pretty good chance that if PASS has done something you don’t like or is doing something you don’t like, that I’m involved in one way or another. Andy Leonard asked in a comment on his blog if the Board had ever reversed itself based on community input.  He asserted that it hadn’t.  I disagree.  I’m not going to try and list all the changes we make inside portfolios based on feedback from and meetings with the community.  I’m going to focus on major governance issues since I was elected to the Board. Management Company The first big change was our management company.  Our old management company had a standard approach to running a non-profit.  It worked well when PASS was launched.  Having a ready-made structure and process to run the organization enabled the organization to grow quickly.  As time went on we were limited in some of the things we wanted to do.  The more involved you were with PASS, the more you saw these limitations.  Key volunteers were regularly providing feedback that they wanted certain changes that were difficult for us to accomplish.  The Board at that time wanted changes that were difficult or impossible to accomplish under that structure. This was not a simple change.  Imagine a $2.5 million dollar company letting all its employees go on a Friday and starting with a new staff on Monday.  We also had a very narrow window to accomplish that so that we wouldn’t affect the Summit – our only source of revenue.  We spent the year after the change rebuilding processes and putting on the Summit in Denver.  That’s a concrete example of a huge change that PASS made to better serve its members.  And it was a change that many in the community were telling us we needed to make. Financials We heard regularly from our members that they wanted our financials posted.  Today on our web site you can find audited financials going back to 2004.  We publish our budget at the start of each year.  If you ask a question about the financials on the PASS site I do my best to answer it.  I’m also trying to do a better job answering financial questions posted in other locations.  (And yes, I know I owe a few of you some blog posts.) That’s another concrete example of a change that our members asked for that the Board agreed was a good decision. Minutes When I started on the Board the meeting minutes were very limited.  The minutes from a two day Board meeting might fit on one page.  I think we did the bare minimum we were legally required to do.  Today Board meeting minutes run from 5 to 12 pages and go into incredible detail on what we talk about.  There are certain topics that are NDA but where possible we try to list the topic we discussed but that the actual discussion was under NDA.  We also publish the agenda of Board meetings ahead of time. This is another specific example where input from the community influenced the decision.  It was certainly easier to have limited minutes but I think the extra effort helps our members understand what’s going on. Board Q&A At the 2009 Summit the Board held its first public Q&A with our members.  We’d always been available individually to answer questions.  There’s a benefit to getting us all in one room and asking the really hard questions to watch us squirm.  We learn what questions we don’t have good answers for.  We get to see how many people in the crowd look interested in the various questions and answers. I don’t recall the genesis of how this came about.  I’m fairly certain there was some community pressure though. Board Votes Until last November, the Board only reported the vote totals and not how individual Board members voted.  That was one of the topics at a great lunch I had with Tim Mitchell and Kendal van Dyke at the Summit.  That was also the topic of the first question asked at the Board Q&A by Kendal.  Kendal expressed his opposition to to anonymous votes clearly and passionately and without trying to paint anyone into a corner.  Less than 24 hours later the PASS Board voted to make individual votes public unless the topic was under NDA.  That’s another area where the Board decided to change based on feedback from our members. Summit Location While this isn’t actually a governance issue it is one of the more public decisions we make that has taken some public criticism.  There is a significant portion of our members that want the Summit near them.  There is a significant portion of our members that like the Summit in Seattle.  There is a significant portion of our members that think it should move around the country.  I was one that felt strongly that there were significant, tangible benefits to our attendees to being in Seattle every year.  I’m also one that has been swayed by some very compelling arguments that we need to have at least one outside Seattle and then revisit the decision.  I can’t tell you how the Board will vote but I know the opinion of our members weighs heavily on the decision. Elections And that brings us to the grand-daddy of all governance issues.  My thesis for this blog post is that the PASS Board has implemented policy changes in response to member feedback.  It isn’t to defend or criticize our election process.  It’s just to say that is has been under going continuous change since I’ve been on the Board.  I ran for the Board in the fall of 2005.  I don’t know much about what happened before then.  I was actively volunteering for PASS for four years prior to that as a chapter leader and on the program committee.  I don’t recall any complaints about elections but that doesn’t mean they didn’t occur.  The questions from the Nominating Committee (NomCom) were trivial and the selection process rudimentary (For example, “Tell us about your accomplishments”).  I don’t even remember who I ran against or how many other people ran.  I ran for the VP of Marketing in the fall of 2007.  I don’t recall any significant changes the Board made in the election process for that election.  I think a lot of the changes in 2007 came from us asking the management company to work on the election process.  I was expecting a similar set of puff ball questions from my previous election.  Boy, was I in for a shock.  The NomCom had found a much better set of questions and really made the interview portion difficult.  The questions were much more behavioral in nature.  I’d already written about my vision for PASS and my goals.  They wanted to know how I handled adversity, how I handled criticism, how I handled conflict, how I handled troublesome volunteers, how I motivated people and how I responded to motivation. And many, many other things. They grilled me for over an hour.  I’ve done a fair bit of technical sales in my time.  I feel I speak well under pressure addressing pointed questions.  This interview intentionally put me under pressure.  In addition to wanting to know about my interpersonal skills, my work experience, my volunteer experience and my supervisory experience they wanted to see how I’d do under pressure.  They wanted to see who would respond under pressure and who wouldn’t.  It was a bit of a shock. That was the first big change I remember in the election process.  I know there were other improvements around the process but none of them stick in my mind quite like the unexpected hour-long grilling. The next big change I remember was after the 2009 elections.  Andy Warren was unhappy with the election process and wanted to make some changes.  He worked with Hannes at HQ and they came up with a better set of processes.  I think Andy moved PASS in the right direction.  Nonetheless, after the 2010 election even more people were very publicly clamoring for changes to our election process.  In August of 2010 we had a choice to make.  There were numerous bloggers criticizing the Board and our upcoming election.  The easy change would be to announce that we were changing the process in a way that would satisfy our critics.  I believe that a knee-jerk response to criticism is seldom correct. Instead the Board spent August and September and October and November listening to the community.  I visited two SQLSaturdays and asked questions of everyone I could.  I attended chapter meetings and asked questions of as many people as they’d let me.  At Summit I made it a point to introduce myself to strangers and ask them about the election.  At every breakfast I’d sit down at a table full of strangers and ask about the election.  I’m happy to say that I left most tables arguing about the election.  Most days I managed to get 2 or 3 breakfasts in. I spent less time talking to people that had already written about the election.  They were already expressing their opinion.  I wanted to talk to people that hadn’t spoken up.  I wanted to know what the silent majority thought.  The Board all attended the Q&A session where our members expressed their concerns about a variety of issues including the election. The PASS Board also chose to create the Election Review Committee.  We wanted people from the community that had been involved with PASS to look at our election process with fresh eyes while listening to what the community had to say and give us some advice on how we could improve the process.  I’m a part of this as is Andy Warren.  None of the other members are on the Board.  I’ve sat in numerous calls and interviews with this group and attended an open meeting at the Summit.  We asked anyone that wanted to discuss the election to come speak with us.  The ERC held an open meeting at the Summit and invited anyone to attend.  There are forums on the ERC web site where we’ve invited people to participate.  The ERC has reached to key people involved in recent elections.  The years that I haven’t mentioned also saw minor improvements in the election process.  Off the top of my head I don’t recall what exact changes were made each year.  Specifically since the 2010 election we’ve gone out of our way to seek input from the community about the process.  I’m not sure what more we could have done to invite feedback from the community. I think to say that we haven’t “fixed” the election process isn’t a fair criticism at this time.  We haven’t rushed any changes through the process.  If you don’t see any changes in our election process in July or August then I think it’s fair to criticize us for ignoring the community or ask for an explanation for what we’ve done. In Summary Andy’s main point was that the PASS Board hasn’t changed in response to our members wishes.  I think I’ve shown that time and time again the PASS Board has changed in response to what our members want.  There are only two outstanding issues: Summit location and elections.  The 2013 Summit location hasn’t been decided yet.  Our work on the elections is also in progress.  And at every step in the election review we’ve gone out of our way to listen to the community and incorporate their feedback on the process. I also hope I’m not encouraging everyone that wants some change in the organization to organize a “blog rush” against the Board.  We take public suggestions very seriously but we also take the time to evaluate those suggestions and learn what the rest of our members think and make a measured decision.

    Read the article

  • WCF: Serializing and Deserializing generic collections

    - by Fabiano
    I have a class Team that holds a generic list: [DataContract(Name = "TeamDTO", IsReference = true)] public class Team { [DataMember] private IList<Person> members = new List<Person>(); public Team() { Init(); } private void Init() { members = new List<Person>(); } [System.Runtime.Serialization.OnDeserializing] protected void OnDeserializing(StreamingContext ctx) { Log("OnDeserializing of Team called"); Init(); if (members != null) Log(members.ToString()); } [System.Runtime.Serialization.OnSerializing] private void OnSerializing(StreamingContext ctx) { Log("OnSerializing of Team called"); if (members != null) Log(members.ToString()); } [System.Runtime.Serialization.OnDeserialized] protected void OnDeserialized(StreamingContext ctx) { Log("OnDeserialized of Team called"); if (members != null) Log(members.ToString()); } [System.Runtime.Serialization.OnSerialized] private void OnSerialized(StreamingContext ctx) { Log("OnSerialized of Team called"); Log(members.ToString()); } When I use this class in a WCF service, I get following log output OnSerializing of Team called System.Collections.Generic.List 1[Person] OnSerialized of Team called System.Collections.Generic.List 1[Person] OnDeserializing of Team called System.Collections.Generic.List 1[ENetLogic.ENetPerson.Model.FirstPartyPerson] OnDeserialized of Team called ENetLogic.ENetPerson.Model.Person[] After the deserialization members is an Array and no longer a generic list although the field type is IList< (?!) When I try to send this object back over the WCF service I get the log output OnSerializing of Team called ENetLogic.ENetPerson.Model.FirstPartyPerson[] After this my unit test crashes with a System.ExecutionEngineException, which means the WCF service is not able to serialize the array. (maybe because it expected a IList<) So, my question is: Does anybody know why the type of my IList< is an array after deserializing and why I can't serialize my Team object any longer after that? Thanks

    Read the article

  • JavaScript function, which reads connections between objects

    - by Nikita Sumeiko
    I have a JavaScript literal: var members = { "mother": { "name" : "Mary", "age" : "48", "connection": { "brother" : "sun" } }, "father": { "name" : "Bill", "age" : "50" }, "brother": { "name" : "Alex", "age" : "28" } } Than I have a function, which should read connections from the literal above. It looks like this: function findRelations(members){ var wires = new Array(); var count = 0; for (n = 0; n < members.length; n++){ alert(members.length); // this alert is undefined if (members[n].connection){ for (i = 0; i < members[n].connection[0].length; i++){ var mw = new Array(); var destination = 0; for (m = 0; m < members.length; m ++){ if (members[m] == members[n].connection[0]){ destination = m; mw = [n, destination]; wires [count] = mw; count++; } } } } } return wires; } However, when I run this function, I get nothing. And the first alert, which is placed inside the function shows 'undefined' at all. findRelations(members); alert("Found " + wires.length + " connections"); I guess that's because of JavaScript literal. Could you suggest how to change a function or perhaps to change litteral to JSON array to get it work?! And at the end to get 'm' and 'n' values as numbers.

    Read the article

  • returning values from function or method multiple times by only calling the class once

    - by Sokhrat Sikar
    I have a members.php file that shows my websites members. I echo members name by using foreach method. A method of Members class returns an array, then I use foreach loop in the members.php file to echo the members. I am trying to aovid writing php code in my members.php file. Is there a way to avoid using foreach inside members.php file? For example, is it possible to return value from a method couple of times? (by only calling the object once). Just like how we normally call the functions? This question doesn't make sense, but I am just trying to see if there is a away around this issue?

    Read the article

  • WebCenter Spaces 11g PS2 Task Flow Customization

    - by Javier Ductor
    Previously, I wrote about Spaces Template Customization. In order to adapt Spaces to customers prototype, it was necessary to change template and skin, as well as the members task flow. In this entry, I describe how to customize this task flow.Default members portlet:Prototype Members Portlet:First thing to do, I downloaded SpacesTaskflowCustomizationApplication with its guide.This application allows developers to modify task flows in Spaces, such as Announcements, Discussions, Events, Members, etc. Before starting, some configuration is needed in jDeveloper, like changing role to 'Customization Developer' mode, although it is explained in the application guide. It is important to know that the way task flows are modified is through libraries, and they cannot be updated directly in the source code like templates, you must use the Structure panel for this. Steps to customize Members portlet:1. There are two members views: showIconicView and showListView. By default it is set to Iconic view, but in my case I preferred the View list, so I updated in table-of-members-taskflow.xml this default value.2. Change the TableOfMembers-ListView.jspx file. By editing this file, you can control the way this task flow is displayed. So I customized this list view using the structure panel to get the desired look&feel.3. After changes are made, click save all, because every time a library changes an xml file is generated with all modifications listed, and they must be saved.4. Rebuild project and deploy application.5. Open WLST command window and import this customization to MDS repository with the 'import' command.Eventually, this was the result:Other task flows can be customized in a similar way.

    Read the article

  • How does initializing inherited members inside base class constructor reduce the calls to…?

    - by flockofcode
    I’ve read that instead of initializing inherited members ( _c1 in our example ) inside derived constructor: class A { public int _c; } class B:A { public B(int c) { _c = c; } } we should initialize them inside base class constructor, since that way we reduce the calls to inherited members ( _c ): class A { public A(int c) { _c = c; } public int _c; } class B:A { public B(int c) : base(c) { } } If _c field is initialized inside base constructor, the order of initialization is the following: 1) First the field initializers of derived class B are called 2) Then field initializers of base class A are called (at this point _c is set to value 0) 3) B’s constructor is called, which in turn calls A’s custom constructor 4) _c field gets set to value of a parameter c ( inside A’s custom constructor ) 5) Once A’s custom constructor returns, B’s constructor executes its code. If _c field is initialized inside B's constructor, the order of initialization is the following: 1) First the field initializers of a derived class B are called 2) Then field initializers of a base class A are called(at this point _c is set to value 0) 3) B’s constructor is called, which in turn calls A’s default constructor 4) Once A’s custom constructor returns, B’s constructor sets _c field to a value of parameter c As far as I can tell, in both cases was _c called two times, so how exactly did we reduce calls to inherited member _c? thanx

    Read the article

  • PASS: Bylaw Changes

    - by Bill Graziano
    While you’re reading this, a post should be going up on the PASS blog on the plans to change our bylaws.  You should be able to find our old bylaws, our proposed bylaws and a red-lined version of the changes.  We plan to listen to feedback until March 31st.  At that point we’ll decide whether to vote on these changes or take other action. The executive summary is that we’re adding a restriction to prevent more than two people from the same company on the Board and eliminating the Board’s Officer Appointment Committee to have Officers directly elected by the Board.  This second change better matches how officer elections have been conducted in the past. The Gritty Details Our scope was to change bylaws to match how PASS actually works and tackle a limited set of issues.  Changing the bylaws is hard.  We’ve been working on these changes since the March board meeting last year.  At that meeting we met and talked through the issues we wanted to address.  In years past the Board has tried to come up with language and then we’ve discussed and negotiated to get to the result.  In March, we gave HQ guidance on what we wanted and asked them to come up with a starting point.  Hannes worked on building us an initial set of changes that we could work our way through.  Discussing changes like this over email is difficult wasn’t very productive.  We do a much better job on this at the in-person Board meetings.  Unfortunately there are only 2 or 3 of those a year. In August we met in Nashville and spent time discussing the changes.  That was also the day after we released the slate for the 2010 election. The discussion around that colored what we talked about in terms of these changes.  We talked very briefly at the Summit and again reviewed and revised the changes at the Board meeting in January.  This is the result of those changes and discussions. We made numerous small changes to clean up language and make wording more clear.  We also made two big changes. Director Employment Restrictions The first is that only two people from the same company can serve on the Board at the same time.  The actual language in section VI.3 reads: A maximum of two (2) Directors who are employed by, or who are joint owners or partners in, the same for-profit venture, company, organization, or other legal entity, may concurrently serve on the PASS Board of Directors at any time. The definition of “employed” is at the sole discretion of the Board. And what a mess this turns out to be in practice.  Our membership is a hodgepodge of interlocking relationships.  Let’s say three Board members get together and start a blog service for SQL Server bloggers.  It’s technically for-profit.  Let’s assume it makes $8 in the first year.  Does that trigger this clause?  (Technically yes.)  We had a horrible time trying to write language that covered everything.  All the sample bylaws that we found were just as vague as this. That led to the third clause in this section.  The first sentence reads: The Board of Directors reserves the right, strictly on a case-by-case basis, to overrule the requirements of Section VI.3 by majority decision for any single Director’s conflict of employment. We needed some way to handle the trivial issues and exercise some judgment.  It seems like a public vote is the best way.  This discloses the relationship and gets each Board member on record on the issue.   In practice I think this clause will rarely be used.  I think this entire section will only be invoked for actual employment issues and not for small side projects.  In either case we have the mechanisms in place to handle it in a public, transparent way. That’s the first and third clauses.  The second clause says that if your situation changes and you fall afoul of this restriction you need to notify the Board.  The clause further states that if this new job means a Board members violates the “two-per-company” rule the Board may request their resignation.  The Board can also  allow the person to continue serving with a majority vote.  I think this will also take some judgment.  Consider a person switching jobs that leads to three people from the same company.  I’m very likely to ask for someone to resign if all three are two weeks into a two year term.  I’m unlikely to ask anyone to resign if one is two weeks away from ending their term.  In either case, the decision will be a public vote that we can be held accountable for. One concern that was raised was whether this would affect someone choosing to accept a job.  I think that’s a choice for them to make.  PASS is clearly stating its intent that only two directors from any one organization should serve at any time.  Once these bylaws are approved, this policy should not come as a surprise to any potential or current Board members considering a job change.  This clause isn’t perfect.  The biggest hole is business relationships that aren’t defined above.  Let’s say that two employees from company “X” serve on the Board.  What happens if I accept a full-time consulting contract with that company?  Let’s assume I’m working directly for one of the two existing Board members.  That doesn’t violate section VI.3.  But I think it’s clearly the kind of relationship we’d like to prevent.  Unfortunately that was even harder to write than what we have now.  I fully expect that in the next revision of the bylaws we’ll address this.  It just didn’t make it into this one. Officer Elections The officer election process received a slightly different rewrite.  Our goal was to codify in the bylaws the actual process we used to elect the officers.  The officers are the President, Executive Vice-President (EVP) and Vice-President of Marketing.  The Immediate Past President (IPP) is also an officer but isn’t elected.  The IPP serves in that role for two years after completing their term as President.  We do that for continuity’s sake.  Some organizations have a President-elect that serves for one or two years.  The group that founded PASS chose to have an IPP. When I started on the Board, the Nominating Committee (NomCom) selected the slate for the at-large directors and the slate for the officers.  There was always one candidate for each officer position.  It wasn’t really an election so much as the NomCom decided who the next person would be for each officer position.  Behind the scenes the Board worked to select the best people for the role. In June 2009 that process was changed to bring it line with what actually happens.  An Officer Appointment Committee was created that was a subset of the Board.  That committee would take time to interview the candidates and present a slate to the Board for approval.  The majority vote of the Board would determine the officers for the next two years.  In practice the Board itself interviewed the candidates and conducted the elections.  That means it was time to change the bylaws again. Section VII.2 and VII.3 spell out the process used to select the officers.  We use the phrase “Officer Appointment” to separate it from the Director election but the end result is that the Board elects the officers.  Section VII.3 starts: Officers shall be appointed bi-annually by a majority of all the voting members of the Board of Directors. Everything else revolves around that sentence.  We use the word appoint but they truly are elected.  There are details in the bylaws for term limits, minimum requirements for President (1 prior term as an officer), tie breakers and filling vacancies. In practice we will have an election for President, then an election for EVP and then an election for VP Marketing.  That means that losing candidates will be able to fall down the ladder and run for the next open position.  Another point to note is that officers aren’t at-large directors.  That means if a current sitting officer loses all three elections they are off the Board.  Having Board member votes public will help with the transparency of this approach. This process has a number of positive and negatives.  The biggest concern I expect to hear is that our members don’t directly choose the officers.  I’m going to try and list all the positives and negatives of this approach. Many non-profits value continuity and are slower to change than a business.  On the plus side this promotes that.  On the negative side this promotes that.  If we change too slowly the members complain that we aren’t responsive.  If we change too quickly we make mistakes and fail at various things.  We’ve been criticized for both of those lately so I’m not entirely sure where to draw the line.  My rough assumption to this point is that we’re going too slow on governance and too quickly on becoming “more than a Summit.”  This approach creates competition in the officer elections.  If you are an at-large director there is no consequence to losing an election.  If you are an officer the only way to stay on the Board is to win an officer election or an at-large election.  If you are an officer and lose an election you can always run for the next office down.  This makes it very easy for multiple people to contest an election. There is value in a person moving through the officer positions up to the Presidency.  Having the Board select the officers promotes this.  The down side is that it takes a LOT of time to get to the Presidency.  We’ve had good people struggle with burnout.  We’ve had lots of discussion around this.  The process as we’ve described it here makes it possible for someone to move quickly through the ranks but doesn’t prevent people from working their way up through each role. We talked long and hard about having the officers elected by the members.  We had a self-imposed deadline to complete these changes prior to elections this summer. The other challenge was that our original goal was to make the bylaws reflect our actual process rather than create a new one.  I believe we accomplished this goal. We ran out of time to consider this option in the detail it needs.  Having member elections for officers needs a number of problems solved.  We would need a way for candidates to fall through the election.  This is what promotes competition.  Without this few people would risk an election and we’ll be back to one candidate per slot.  We need to do this without having multiple elections.  We may be able to copy what other organizations are doing but I was surprised at how little I could find on other organizations.  We also need a way for people that lose an officer election to win an at-large election.  Otherwise we’ll have very little competition for officers. This brings me to an area that I think we as a Board haven’t done a good job.  We haven’t built a strong process to tell you who is doing a good job and who isn’t.  This is a double-edged sword.  I don’t want to highlight Board members that are failing.  That’s not a good way to get people to volunteer and run for the Board.  But I also need a way let the members make an informed choice about who is doing a good job and would make a good officer.  Encouraging Board members to blog, publishing minutes and making votes public helps in that regard but isn’t the final answer.  I don’t know what the final answer is yet.  I do know that the Board members themselves are uniquely positioned to know which other Board members are doing good work.  They know who speaks up in meetings, who works to build consensus, who has good ideas and who works with the members.  What I Could Do Better I’ve learned a lot writing this about how we communicated with our members.  The next time we revise the bylaws I’d do a few things differently.  The biggest change would be to provide better documentation.  The March 2009 minutes provide a very detailed look into what changes we wanted to make to the bylaws.  Looking back, I’m a little surprised at how closely they matched our final changes and covered the various arguments.  If you just read those you’d get 90% of what we eventually changed.  Nearly everything else was just details around implementation.  I’d also consider publishing a scope document defining exactly what we were doing any why.  I think it really helped that we had a limited, defined goal in mind.  I don’t think we did a good job communicating that goal outside the meeting minutes though. That said, I wish I’d blogged more after the August and January meeting.  I think it would have helped more people to know that this change was coming and to be ready for it. Conclusion These changes address two big concerns that the Board had.  First, it prevents a single organization from dominating the Board.  Second, it codifies and clearly spells out how officers are elected.  This is the process that was previously followed but it was somewhat murky.  These changes bring clarity to this and clearly explain the process the Board will follow. We’re going to listen to feedback until March 31st.  At that time we’ll decide whether to approve these changes.  I’m also assuming that we’ll start another round of changes in the next year or two.  Are there other issues in the bylaws that we should tackle in the future?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >