Re: [draft] Proposed resolution 2003-01-06.wta.2

On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:27:07AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I suggest that it would be better to add some text describing what we
> want the committee to fix.

Not if we want a standing committee; the existing proposal doesn't
address that, however.

> How about adding two paragraphs here
> saying:
>
> b. In particular, the Committee is directed to consider
>
> i. The changes needed to make SPI a membership-controlled, rather
> than Board-controlled organisation, including:
> * Election of the Board by the Membership
> * Recall of (members of) the Board
>
> ii. Specific authorisation for the Board (and other similar bodies
> established by the bylaws or otherwise) to regulate their conduct,
> including to give explicitly the power to determine other methods
> of passing resolutions than by meeting.
>
> iii. Other clarifications and improvements that may be helpful.
>
> c. The Board suggests to the Committee that it not suggest changes to
> the bylaws which are motivated directly by recent lack of quoracy at
> Board meetings, as there is no consensus that changes to the bylaws
> are the correct solution to this problem.
>
> (Put `a.' in front of the existing first paragraph of `Purpose'.)

I second b. but not c. The committee can suggest whatever it likes.
Certain people on spi-general have been quite loud about how they feel
the by-laws shouldn't be amended to address the Board's quorum problem.
I think the by-laws committee should be permitted to make its own
determination as to whether amendments to the by-laws are the proper
medicine for this problem, and not be steered one way or the other on
the issue.

If certain Board members don't want the by-laws amended to address
meeting quorum problems, I suggest those Board members attend the
meetings for a change, and thereby attenuate the impetus for making any
such amendments.

--
G. Branden Robinson, Treasurer
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
treasurer(at)spi-inc(dot)org
http://www.spi-inc.org/