Re: [RESULT] Replace the bylaws of Software in the Public Interest

Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com> wrote:

> That's not a bad idea, but honestly, given the outcome of the recent
> vote, I too believe that just calling for the same vote again with the
> call for votes making it VERY clear that there are significant quorum
> issues with the existing bylaws that make it very important that
> EVERYONE take time to vote, would likely yield the desired outcome in
> one step.

I suspect voter fatigue and feeling that the board was treating the
result with contempt may make that not so. It's considered a bad sign to
just keep repeating a vote unchanged because one doesn't like the
result, as the UK Prime Minister has discovered to her cost!

I feel it would be better if the call for votes was accompanied with a
better justification for wholesale replacement than the old rules "do
not meet the current practical operational needs of SPI" yet something
more succinct than a cited-but-not-linked 10 page FAQ which, frankly, I
found unstructured and confusing - who asked those questions frequently?

Confusing also because the FAQ says "The board is primarily trying to
update the bylaws to match actual practice, not to govern SPI
differently" which seems to contradict the "do not meet the current
practical operational needs" justification for a clean-slate rewrite.

There seems to be no changelog from the original draft, nor any
commentary/comparison with the current rules. There are "most
noteworthy changes" in the FAQ but who knows if I agree with the
anonymous FAQ author?

I doubt I'm the only SPI member who felt uninformed and without time
across the end of the tax year to become properly informed, so I cast
no vote.

Hope that informs,
--

MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Member of http://www.software.coop/ (but this email is my personal view
only)