On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:48 PM Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> I wondered if I had been negligent, reading the voting communication too
> fast, but after looking at my mailbox (which might be missing 1 mail), I
> didn't find any indication that abstention effectively opposed the change.
> Judging fr
It seems the current language of the section on amending the bylaws in essence
require at least (= in the best case, i.e., 100% approving votes) a two thirds
quorum for any (substantive, i..e., beyond listing of current officers) changes
to the bylaws to pass. Even if that’s not what it states,
On 4/15/19 12:32 PM, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
[...]
>
> A two thirds quorum of the full membership is highly unlikely to ever be
> reached, so there’s the potential here that SPI will be forever locked
> into the current version of the bylaws. (I suppose the only way out
> would be to dissolve and re-
Hi Hilmar,
On 19-04-15 12 h 32, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
It seems the current language of the section on amending the bylaws in essence
require at least (= in the best case, i.e., 100% approving votes) a two thirds
quorum for any (substantive, i..e., beyond listing of current officers) changes
to t
