Re: Identification of problems

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:06:51PM -0600, srivasta(at)acm(dot)org wrote:
> > If we were to put the ban on the e-mail voting veto into the bylaws
> > and a ban on weekday board meetings, that would be:
>
> We can put no such thing in the by laws, we can recommend
> changes to the board. The board then changes the by laws. If the
> board wants to over turn its own motion, do they not have the right?

Actually, we recommend changes to the contributing members, who then change
the bylaws. (See article 12)

> The board instituted this ctte to fix what is
> wrong. Obviously things are broken; and by holding what came before
> as sacrosanct, and diffidently never asking the board to consider
> changing the way things were done means we sholl accomplish nothing,
> and we may as well stop now and not waste anyones time.

You misunderstand my position. I am not advocating holding anything
sacrosanct (save for articles 1 and 2, but that's different).

Rather, I am saying that if the problem is a simple issue with something the
board passed, it is more proper to have the board pass a new resolution
fixing the issue.

I do not have a problem with overriding existing resolutions in the name of
larger reforms.

> Artificially limiting ourselves may preclude the most
> effective solutions from even bering tabled.

That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm just suggesting that if there is a
problem solely with a board's passed resolution, then the board should pass
a new resolution to fix it.

I do not want us to be constrained by past resolutions either. Hence I
wrote this:

JG> If there is a problem with the motions the board has passed, the right
JG> place to fix it is in the board, not in this committee -- UNLESS the
JG> problem stems from a root deficiency in the bylaws.

> And nothing precludes us from recommending to the board that
> a changed version be in the by laws; they can, and shall, over ride
> older motions as they see fit. We should not ever discard working
> solution cause the board may have passed a motion at some time in
> the past.

Agreed.

> It was an *EXAMPLE*. We shall ahve failed our charter if we
> leave SPI just as liable to fall into impotent inaction if we do not
> provide mechanisms to prevent that from happening, and, I suspect,

And with that, I agree.

> > * To duly undertake the work mandated in our charter;
>
> > * To not use the bylaws committee to gratuitously overrule actions
> > of the Board in a permenant way;
>
> Can't happen. The by laws ctte merely recommends to the
> board, and we are not brain dead. Any attempts shall be voted
> down, so this agenda item is a no-op anyway.

It's the membership that does the voting. But I don't want us to be even
advocating that.

> I find such a lack of giving me the benefit of even a
> modicum of intelligence insulting. Incidentally, I think your second
> point is not fully thought through: you seem to assume this ctte come
> s up with a fully formed by laws that go into effect. This is far
> from the truth: we shall recommend changes, with our rationale;
> the board has the final say.

No, I do not hold that opinion. I just find it annoying to write "the
output of the committee, subject to the affirmative vote of the contributing
membership" all the time. I thought this was commonly-enough understood.

However, the board does NOT have the final say. It is in the hands of the
membership. Article 12.

-- John