Re: Proposed SPI Bylaws Amendment

On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 03:53:33PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> I don't think that it is really prudent to concentrate power in even fewer
> hands as this would tend to do. If the immediate problem is that board
> members don't show up, then address that problem, but don't take this weird
> round-about method to do so.

How would you remedy this? The board can't remove people at meetings
without a quorum, and the only provision for voting via email allows any
board member to veto the resolution. Also, the board has not acted on
any of 4 or 5 nominations for new board members that have been received
by it.

> I don't think that the problem is that quorum is too high. I think that the
> problem is that the board members aren't showing up.

See above.

> So your resolution wouldn't fix the problem, it would just apply a band-aid.
> How about considering other options, such as automatic expulsion of a board
> member if the member fails to be present for x number of meetings, with
> perhaps some fail-safe measures?

Those things are more controversial, so I left them out of this
proposal. This is sort of a band-aid, but it is a necessary one; it will
at least allow the board to act properly to change its membership by
adding and removing people. Given the current makeup of the board, the
current quorum of 6 is too hard to meet, but it is quite possible (with
some advance planning) to meet a quorum of 4 of the current board
members. So, this is the only way to fix the composition of the board.
(Also, some board members are working behind the scenes to get the
current board to act despite its largely inactive membership; but it's
better to proceed on multiple fronts at once, so that something will
happen.)

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)debian(dot)org