From: | John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com> |
Cc: | spi-bylaws(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Prioritization draft |
Date: | 2003-02-26 21:19:35 |
Message-ID: | 20030226211935.GA7737@wile.excelhustler.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
Thread: | |
Lists: | spi-bylaws |
Just to be clear, Bdale -- we'll be holding discussions on each item listed
starting in a few days. These discussions will be public on this list (your
input, and that from others is welcome) and will include a discussion about
whether each item is even a problem and what the best solution will be.
So, summary version is: thanks for the comments, but we're not ready for
them just quite yet.
-- John
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 02:11:52PM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org> writes:
>
> > 13 Annual re-election of board members.
> >
> > 39 A method is needed for transitioning from the current board to a full
> > board whose members are re-elected annually.
>
> Board members serving for a specified term is probably a good idea. I
> strongly suggest that you not propose all board members be re-elected each
> year, though. A staggered system where board members serve for two years
> with half being re-elected in alternating years, or board members serving
> for three years with a third up for re-election each year would provide a
> balance between continuity and "freshness."
>
> Serving for a longer term than a year shouldn't be a problem if there is an
> effective method for dealing with a board member who becomes inactive in
> mid-term, which appropriately appears higher on your priority list.
>
> As for a transition plan, I've seen that handled in the past by including an
> explicit assertion about who will serve what remaining terms before
> re-election in the resolution to accept the bylaws changes.
>
> > 31 Contributing members who fail to turn in any ballot at all should be
> > subject to membership committee review.
>
> The description of a contributing member is someone who participates actively
> in the community and has the right to vote... this item implies converting
> that right into an obligation? I'm not sure I see the point of that.
>
> Bdale
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-bylaws mailing list
> Spi-bylaws(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-bylaws
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Branden Robinson / SPI Treasurer | 2003-02-27 14:15:28 | Re: Result for vote regarding new members for the board of directors |
Previous Message | Bdale Garbee | 2003-02-26 21:11:52 | Re: Prioritization draft |