Re: Proposed revisions of Article 3: Membership

I think one useful concept is to have representative minority veto be
part of the equation. So that there is a special class of members
(board or directing members, if you will) that can fabricate potential
new policies. In certain cases (controlled by policy) there should be
resolutions that can be voted in with a 5 or 7 day veto period. Some
items might be whether a license is Open Source or something like that.

If the motion survives the veto period without recieving a representative
minority veto then it passes. Reasonably, I cannot see much of any
situation that requires such a quick turn around. The only thing I can
think of is press releases representing community opinion. This, however,
is difficult and slow to assess and reasonably could not be fabricated
in a short time frame.

On Thu, Mar 18, 1999 at 05:38:29PM -0500, Nils Lohner wrote:
> I have had several discussions with Ian, Joey, and Dale about this, and
> this will be the first time those thoughts are really put down in writing.
> Eventually it would be nice to have a document that contains all of the
> rationales behind the articles- that way people can see the 'spirit of the
> law' as well as the letter.
>
> Actually, before the real 'writing' I'd like to outline a few possible
> scenarios. I'm not sure which one makes most sense... all have their
> advantages and drawbacks. I'm somewhat torn between scenarios 1&2- I'm
> not sure which is better suited to SPIs goals.
>
> I'd like to figure out which scenario makes the most sense (and why!!) and
> then figure out the details, and then actually write the bylaws article.
> When commenting on this, please don't just ask questions- also try to
> propose solutions at the same time.
>
> Discussion season is open.
>
> Nils.
--
__________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler A guy running Linux
Novare International Inc. A company running Linux
*** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.