The forwarded mail was already sent to spi-general but does not display
in the web archives due to some technical issue. I am hereby re-sending
it so that it becomes public, and am apologizing for the noise to those
who already received it.
-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet : Re: [RESULT] Replace the bylaws of Software in the Public
Interest
Date : Mon, 15 Apr 2019 22:56:32 -0400
De : Philippe Cloutier <chea...@gmail.com>
Pour : spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
Copie à : Hilmar Lapp <hl...@drycafe.net>, henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
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 the bylaws to pass. Even if that’s not
what it states, it’s what the language effectively results in; though
the fact that it does not mention putting into effect a quorum makes
one wonder whether this was indeed the intended effect of those who
originally wrote it.
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-incorporate?)
Perhaps it would be better to divide the proposed changes into two
steps. The first would be to _only_ alter the section on bylaws
amendments to establish a more reasonable (i.e., realistically
attainable) quorum. This would hopefully constitute a small and
focused enough change that those unable to invest the necessary time
to fully understand a much more complex set of changes to review it,
form an opinion, and vote. Once that’s enacted, the more complex set
of changes can be brought up for a vote, and getting that approved
then doesn’t force nearly everyone to choose between spending a
significant amount of time on really understanding the proposed
changes, or casting an uninformed vote, or by abstaining effectively
casting a disapproving vote.
The possibility you mention is "interesting", and your suggestion would
be a great solution to that problem. However, considering that only 20
approvals were missing out of 216 contributing members, I am quite
skeptical that this is needed. I setup a quick poll on
http://www.philippecloutier.com/SPI+bylaws to estimate how many
contributing members regret not having voted.
It would by the way be great to use "continual consideration" for
timeless proposals like this one so there is no need to restart a vote
from 0 if only a few votes are missing.
-hilmar
On Apr 15, 2019, at 6:18 AM, Henrik Ingo <henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi>
wrote:
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:48 PM Filipus Klutiero <chea...@gmail.com>
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 from
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2019-March/003965.html
alone I think many members may have failed to realized the impact of
abstaining.
This is true for me as well. I assumed this would pass as a routine
decision and since I haven't been so active in SPI recently, I didn't
spend the effort to personally familiarize myself with the text of the
new bylaws and then vote. I regret to see the effort to renew the
bylaws go to waste because of this and it wasn't my intention to
effectively vote against approval.
henrik
--
henrik.i...@avoinelama.fi
+358-40-5697354 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo
www.openlife.cc
My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
_______________________________________________
Spi-general mailing list
Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org
http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
--
Hilmar Lapp -:- lappland.io <http://lappland.io>
--
Philippe Cloutier
http://www.philippecloutier.com
