Re: Proposed SPI Bylaws Amendment

On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 02:49:09AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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.

I think that the resolution before us is a case of "the cure is worse than
the disease" -- that is, I disagree that is is even good for SPI or will
really just make it work.

I have said there are some options I think are better: 1) putting a built-in
time limit on this resolution, 2) allowing the membership to recall board
members. I would be happy to offer, later today, a resolution for #2 if
there is any support for such. (If I'm the only one behind that option,
there's no point in bothering.)

Thus, we could vote on both proposals immeditately (or at the same time; I
haven't yet looked into SPI membership voting procedures). I don't think it
would slow things down at all to merely have the option.

> 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.''

--
John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org> www.complete.org