Re: Proposed SPI Bylaws Amendment

On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 07:38:40AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Note that I'm not implying that any of our current members, or any current
> candidates, would do this -- just that this is a possibility opened up by
> your proposal. With the current quorum requirements, it is significantly
> more difficult. Checks and balances.

On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 05:04:22PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> However, I still disagree that there are four meetings failed.

Guys, enough. I'd be the last person to disagree with protracted debate
on principle, but there comes a time when it is better to make suboptimal
decisions promptly. For SPI, that time's now. The resolution we have
before us mightn't be perfect, but it's time to stop the bickering and
just make it work.

Note that if the board fails to meet on the 17th, and sticks with its
Tuesday meeting schedule, it has the opportunity to meet on Christmas
eve, or on New Year's eve, or to fail its mandated responsibility to
meet once each quarter.

Cheers,
aj

--
Anthony Towns <aj(at)humbug(dot)org(dot)au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''