Bdale Garbee <bd...@gag.com> wrote: > That's not a bad idea, but honestly, given the outcome of the recent > vote, I too believe that just calling for the same vote again with the > call for votes making it VERY clear that there are significant quorum > issues with the existing bylaws that make it very important that > EVERYONE take time to vote, would likely yield the desired outcome in > one step.
I suspect voter fatigue and feeling that the board was treating the result with contempt may make that not so. It's considered a bad sign to just keep repeating a vote unchanged because one doesn't like the result, as the UK Prime Minister has discovered to her cost! I feel it would be better if the call for votes was accompanied with a better justification for wholesale replacement than the old rules "do not meet the current practical operational needs of SPI" yet something more succinct than a cited-but-not-linked 10 page FAQ which, frankly, I found unstructured and confusing - who asked those questions frequently? Confusing also because the FAQ says "The board is primarily trying to update the bylaws to match actual practice, not to govern SPI differently" which seems to contradict the "do not meet the current practical operational needs" justification for a clean-slate rewrite. There seems to be no changelog from the original draft, nor any commentary/comparison with the current rules. There are "most noteworthy changes" in the FAQ but who knows if I agree with the anonymous FAQ author? I doubt I'm the only SPI member who felt uninformed and without time across the end of the tax year to become properly informed, so I cast no vote. Hope that informs, -- MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ Member of http://www.software.coop/ (but this email is my personal view only)
pgpBMv3X9wFO_.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
