David Graham writes ("Re: proposed replacement bylaws"):
> This is a huge improvement, thanks Bdale.
Thanks for your detailed review. I agree with many of your comments.
> Article 4, Section 4: Qualification for directors
>
> This changes our practices. Current practice is that you are a
> cont
This is a huge improvement, thanks Bdale.
I have a number of comments as I read through it. I have not had a chance
to read the whole thread yet so my apologies if some of these points have
already been covered.
*Article 3, Section 8: Quorum*
"Members entitled to cast a majority of the total num
Hilmar Lapp writes ("Re: proposed replacement bylaws"):
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Bill Allombert
> wrote:
> > I suppose a lot of people would consider a board changing the
> > bylaws without approval from the members to be going nuts.
>
> Yeah, exactly. And more specifically, a Board unilat
> On Jul 4, 2016, at 8:17 AM, Bill Allombert
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 03:34:12PM +0200, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>> Ian Jackson writes:
>>
>> 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 near
On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 03:34:12PM +0200, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> 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
Peter Eisentraut writes ("Re: proposed replacement bylaws"):
> - Create a public comment period of, say, 30 days. If $N members voice
> formal concerns, then the change needs to go to a vote by the full
> membership; otherwise the board can pass it. That would allow the board
> to easily make
Keith Packard writes ("Re: proposed replacement bylaws"):
> 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
Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: proposed replacement bylaws"):
> 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 ori
