Re: SPI bylaws overhaul: new discussion draft

Hi Hilmar,

Completely reasonable request; unfortunately I don't have an easy way to do
that, since I didn't have Bdale's source document. I copied and pasted from the
PDF into a fresh LibreOffice document, fixed most of the formatting issues
manually, and proceeded from there. The lack of a diff is a big part of why I
tried to summarize the changes in my email, and why I put item #6 in my summary
of changes.

If Bdale happened to use LibreOffice or something compatible, I could try to
generate a diff after getting the source document from him if LibreOffice has a
way to do that. I'm not sure about either of those "if"s and suspect the diff
would be noisy anyway due to the reformatting.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:02:33AM -0500, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
> Jimmy - is there a way to produce the PDF such that the changes are highlighted? Or is there another way to directly compare previous to proposed?
>
> -hilmar
>
> > On Nov 11, 2016, at 12:07 AM, Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I've attached a PDF with a draft set of SPI bylaws to replace the current set,
> > for your discussion and input. It's based on the draft which Bdale sent to
> > spi-general earlier this year, with certain changes:
> >
> > 1) Tried to take into account the various feedback I remember from the prior
> > discussion.
> > 2) Preserved our existing practice of making directors contributing members by
> > virtue of their position during their time in office.
> > 3) Fixed various grammar and language issues, and probably worsened some
> > document formatting issues unrelated to substance that would be fixed for a
> > final draft.
> > 4) Retained a more modest-threshold version of the members' current say on
> > bylaws amendments, but combined that with Bdale's desire for the board to be
> > able to make amendments with low hassle when the members don't object, and to
> > handle any urgently needed amendments on a short-term provisional basis with
> > extra checks and balances.
> > 5) Better implemented our existing intent to stagger the board's terms of
> > office evenly across several years, partly by reference to an option in NY
> > state law but with a bunch of extra nuance and detail.
> > 6) Any changes I forgot to include in this summary. I didn't leave anything out
> > intentionally, of course, but this is a reminder to review the whole document.
> >
> > Looking forward to hearing what you think and iterating as necessary! Once we
> > get to a point where reaction is generally positive and the remaining feedback
> > is minor, I'll address any such minor feedback, involve SPI's lawyers to get a
> > properly compliant final draft, and propose a vote for the board to send to the
> > members. This vote will not happen this month but could be any future month,
> > depending on when we get to that point.
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback.
> >
> > - Jimmy Kaplowitz
> > jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org
> > <spi-draft-bylaws-nov2016.pdf>_______________________________________________
> > Spi-general mailing list
> > Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> > http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
>
> --
> Hilmar Lapp -:- lappland.io
>
>
>