Re: Amended Resolution

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 03:22:06PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 03:33:23PM -0400, David Graham wrote:
> > I would support a by-law referendum instead of a board election now,
> > following which the board would hold an election under either the current
> > by-laws or the new ones, depending on the outcome of the referendum.
>
> That makes very good sense.
>
> My only concern is how quickly we could make that happen. In the
> mean time, the board is in a questionable status as it doesn't have
> the amount of members mandated by the current bylaws.

This is my concern as well.

As I detailed in the longer message I sent yesterday on fixing quorum,
amending the bylaws is going to require having the membership
committee get policy and software together to test for and expire
inactive members, test for inactive members (which probably involves
at least a couple weeks of waiting for people to respond -- more if
possible), having a resolution written and proposed to the membership
that more than than 66% of people vote on (this means a long voting
period) AND have that resolution pass.

You add all that up and it's a long time.

I think this is a worthwhile thing to pursue and that's why I
suggested a timeline to do this yesterday. I just feel that in the
time it takes the membership committee to get ready to ping people
about their membership (the first step in fixing the bylaws), we can
vote on and elect new board members for the vacant seats.

As a number of people have mentioned at the board meeting and before,
we only have 3 board members elected by the membership right now. I'd
still like to go ahead and get three more since we have an opportunity
and a reason.

Regards,
Mako

--
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako(at)debian(dot)org
http://mako.yukidoke.org/