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

On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 04:42:37PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Branden Robinson / SPI Treasurer writes ("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.
>
> Eh ? You mean, you agree that we should tell the committee what we
> expect of it ? Or do you disagree ?

In my opinion that's adequately addressed by Wichert's proposal, amended
with your "b.".

> I agree with those who says that that the problem with quoracy should
> not be fixed by changing the bylaws to (eg) reduce the quorum, or the
> like. It should be fixed by appointing board members who turn up, and
> by shortening meetings. We're working on shortening the meetings by
> preparing resolution texts in advance, which I expect will help.

Your position is not illegitimate. I disagree with imposing it on the
proposed committee as an orthodoxy, however. Or even with nudging and
hinting them in that direction.

> I disagree. I'm worried that the bylaws revision - which is an
> important task with serious and long-term implications - will become
> derailed by the quoracy problem, which I think is not caused by
> problems in the bylaws but by the composition of the board (and thus
> indirectly by the board selection process).
>
> Even if the committee ultimately agrees with me, I don't want it to be
> spending its time arguing over this contentious issue. Bylaws changes
> should have widespread consensus support, and the drafting should be a
> cooperative, not a combative, process. If contentious issues like
> this one become dragged in, it may well derail other more productive
> discussion.

I feel that keeping the discussion on track should be the responsibility
of the committee chair. Let us (the Board) please not micro-manage the
committee.

> > 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.
>
> Please stop slinging mud - see my previous message.

Do you assert that your Board meeting attendance record over the past 18
months has been exemplary?

You vetoed your removal from the Board for non-attendance. Given that,
I feel a responsibility to censure you in this relatively mild way for
your poor attendance. If you successfuly re-dedicate your energies to
your SPI Board membership, I'm more than happy to stop. Your insights
are often valuable and philosophically you're in consonance with the
charter of SPI as I understand it. But you're only an asset when you
trouble yourself to be one. Otherwise you're just part of the reason we
can't make quorum.

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