Keith Packard writes ("Re: proposed replacement bylaws"):
> Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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 bylaws.
>
> The mechanism for recovering from this would be a lawsuit filed by the
> membership. It's an insane plan, but would only happen if the board went
> truly insane itself. I believe the threat of such an action will be
> sufficient to prevent it from ever happening.
The membership would lose the lawsuit because the board's actions
would have been lawful.
> It seems like we can either have a fairly weak vote of the membership or
> a strong vote of the board. The strong requirements in the proposed
> bylaws require near consensus among the board, which should prevent even
> a well organized group of board members from effecting any unwarranted
> changes.
I'm firmly of the view that the board should not be permitted to
change the bylaws against the opposition of the membership.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
