On 07/02/2016 06:43 AM, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>- the rules the board voting by email are intractable
Just FYI, some of these rules are mandated by NY corporate law.
___
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/lis
On 7/3/16 9:34 AM, Bdale Garbee wrote:
So, I guess there's a trade-off here. We can have really simple bylaws
and give the board the ability to modify them, trusting that our nearly
complete transparency of operations and the legal context in which we
operate provide the ability to observe and r
Ian Jackson writes:
> We have here a set of bylaws that subjects the board members to
> election, and (if you agree with me above) to recall by the
> membership. But with the current draft the supremacy of the
> membership can be simply anulled at will by the board, simply by
> amending the byla
> On Jul 3, 2016, at 9:34 AM, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>
>> Art XI s1
>>
>> Amending the bylaws should require the consent of the Contributing
>> membership, not of the Baord.
>
> […]
>
> Comments from others on this particular "design decision" in the bylaws
> would be welcome.
FWIW, OBF’s (Open
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: proposed replacement bylaws"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > Art IV s5
> >
> > There should be a power for Contributing members to remove a Director.
>
> Seems like a good idea. Would a simple majority of contributing members
> attending a duly-called general meeting suffic
Ian Jackson writes:
> Bdale Garbee writes ("proposed replacement bylaws"):
>> At our in-person board meeting earlier this year, the board members
>> present worked with Mishi Choudhary from SFLC on the details, and for
>> some weeks we've had a draft set of bylaws that everyone on the board
>> se
Susan Spencer writes:
> If this section describes what actually occurred during the first three
> years of SPI, and if one-third of the Directors are elected each year,
> then this section is correct.
I wasn't present at the original founding of the organization, but our
model of operation for a
