Re: proposed replacement bylaws

David Graham writes ("Re: proposed replacement bylaws"):
> This is a huge improvement, thanks Bdale.

Thanks for your detailed review. I agree with many of your comments.

> Article 4, Section 4: Qualification for directors
>
> This changes our practices. Current practice is that you are a
> contributing member by virtue of being elected to the board. These
> new bylaws require you to already be a contributing member to serve
> on the board. It is important to decide which way we want to do
> this; my take is anyone who can seek and win an election to be a
> Board member should be eligible to be so, whether or not they were a
> contributing member at the start, but more to the point leaving the
> power of deciding who is a contributing member in the Board's hands
> could result in a Board disqualifying someone's membership in order
> to disqualify their board nomination, which at the very least must
> be expressly forbidden.

I think in general it is a problem that a gone-nuts (using the
terminology from the other thread) Board might stack the membership
and/or get rid of `troublemakers'.

I don't have a very good answer to this. One approach would be that
removal of contributing membership should take effect only after a
specific length of time (2 months maybe?), giving time for the
membership to bring the board to heel.

As for stacking the membership, maybe there should be some kind of
limit on the rate at which new members are admitted, or some kind of
formal ratification (even if only by negative resolution) by the
membership ?

Would it be tolerable to make the full membership list, and the names
of prospective contributing members, public (at least to the other
contributing members) ?

If so then we could have the Board publish the names of the
prospective new contributing members, and have them be automatically
ratified in (say) a month, unless a contrary resolution is passed by a
members' meeting ?

Ian.