Re: Resolution for a board membership election

On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 03:48:56PM -0400, David Graham wrote:
> WHEREAS the Board memberships of Ian Jackson and Martin Schulze have
> reached the end of their 3 year terms;

Uh, surely this happened a few months ago at the AM? [0] Why are we
only hearing about it now? (Did we have an AM? There don't seem to be
any minutes up since March. Have there been any meetings since March?)

Given that only Bruce, John and Mako have actually been appointed by
vote of the membership in the first place, is there any reason for the
rest of the board not to offer their seats up for election too?

(A reasonable argument can be made that the remaining board members served
in the years 2000/1, 2001/2, 2001/3 given that terms are supposed to be
from annual meeting to annual meeting, and the appointment happened on
16th May 2001, which considering the apparent complete lack of activity
during 2000, seems more reasonably considered the 1st July 2000 AM
greatly delayed, than the 1st July 2001 AM held a few months early for
no apparent reason.)

(TBH, I find it difficult to believe that Joey's and Ian's seats didn't
technically fall vacant far earlier, given they they've been making
resolutions since 1998, and ttbomk there have been no elections at all,
ever, save for Bruce, John and Mako's.)

Cheers,
aj

[0] ``The directors to be chosen for the ensuing year shall be chosen at the
annual meeting of this organization in the same manner and style as
the officers of this organization and they shall serve for a term of
three years.''

--
Anthony Towns <aj(at)humbug(dot)org(dot)au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda