Re: Identification of problems

The opinions below are mine only and are not intended to speak for John.
Also, I am only responding because I think that you are getting angry
due to misunderstandings and that it's counterproductive to have
committee members angry unnecessarily. As John indicated, we should try
to merely identify problems we see with the bylaws right now, not try to
suggest whether they should or should not be fixed through a bylaws
amendment, or what such an amendment should be, which are steps that we
are planning to do later.

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:54:07PM -0600, srivasta(at)acm(dot)org wrote:
> >>>>> In article <20030214193507(dot)GA4370(at)wile(dot)excelhustler(dot)com>, John
> >>>>> Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org> writes:
>
>
> > However, the bylaws committee should not be usurped for personal
> > preferences,
>
> Excuse me? What personal preferences? Are you seriously
> accusing me of usurping the committee for my iwn personal agenda?

I rather think that he's trying to say that you are mistaken in
believing that we should try to remedy all current problems with SPI's
governance by bylaws amendments. Some can be dealt with through
resolutions.

> You do not seem to understand a word of what I said. What
> motions of the board are we over turning? The board voted to create
> a by laws change committee not to have spiffier by laws, but to
> ensure the board did not fal l into a state of impotence and
> inactivity again.
>
> > If there is a problem with the motions the board has passed, the
> > right place to fix it is in the board, not in this committee --
>
>
> Elucidate. What motions are you referring to?

After reviewing his mail again, I think he's referring to the resolution
authorizing email voting (no, this was not in the bylaws) and the
resolution setting out the meeting schedule. (I'll provide resolution
numbers upon request.)

> > However, assuming that e-mail voting sans veto rule is the only way
> > to accomplish this is very presumptious -- other people may have
> > other ideas, and perhaps reorganizing things to stick more closely
> > to the original intended structure could also solve the problem. I
> > am not advocating one particular solution or voting against any at
>
> Oh, get off your high horse. I never said that my suggested
> solution was the only one feasible -- or even the workable under the
> current formulation. It was an example offered as what I see as a
> problem in the ways the board currently has to work.
>
> > this time; just saying that stating that "we have failed our
> > charter if we do not use this one particular solution" is silly and
> > prejudicial.
>
> Bullshit. I am tempted to say you are delibrately
> prevaricating. Read what I said.

You seem to be interpreting what he said in the way least favorable to
you; other interpretations are also possible (one of which is that he
misunderstood your mail). Since we'll be working together on this
committee for several months and in the rest of SPI for longer than
that, it's probably a good idea to give him the benefit of the doubt in
areas such as this unless there's a good reason not to.

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