Re: #03: Board meeting quorum issues

I think today's meeting, like so many before it, emphasised the need for a
fuzzy quorum rule, allowing a lesser number of board members to conduct
the businses of the organisation in the absence of full quorum.

Enough board members were present today to allow - at least at some poins
during the meeting - an absolute majority of the board to agree on a
measure without quorum actually being attained.

=--------------------------------------------------=
David "cdlu" Graham cdlu(at)pkl(dot)net
Guelph, Ontario SMS: +1 519 760 1409

On Mon, 5 May 2003, John Goerzen wrote:

> On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 10:04:29PM -0400, David Graham wrote:
> > Quorum is no less than 2/3 of the board for normal majority-voting
> > functionning. However, 1/2 the board can hold a meeting if total concensus
> > is reached for all decisions - ie no dissenting votes. This effectively
> > gives all attending members a veto. It also reduces the risk of a member
>
> I could support that if the 1/2 is rewritten to "greater than 1/2" -- that
> is, if you have 12 board members, you'd have to have 7 to qualify under this
> rather than 6. If you have 13, 7 would still be the number.
>
> > I also believe non-IRC meetings, ie email, telephone conference call, real
> > life, whatever, should be explicitly authorised, subject to the same
> > quorum rules as IRC meetings - ie they should not be differentiated. If
> > 2/3 of the people participate in the email meeting, a majority is fine to
> > make a decision. If 1/2 the board participates, they all have to agree.
>
> It's pretty difficult to define a quorum for e-mail meetings. The others
> are real-time and are more easy to include under the existing systems. Do
> you have any ideas about that?
>
> -- John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-bylaws mailing list
> Spi-bylaws(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-bylaws
>