Re: Bylwas Revision: COMMITTEES

On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Darren Benham wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 01:25:52AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > - they should take care of most of the day to day operation of SPI
> > > [this takes the workload off the BOD]
> >
> > Basically they're delegates of the BOD, right?
> No, they *could* be delegates of the membership.

How would the membership delegate those things? Election?

> In fact, any decision of the BOD or any committee should be overridable by
> a vote of the membership.. but the process should be made troublesome
> enough that every person with a hair on their pimple can't contest
> everything.

How about a petition scheme. If a petition is pgp signed by 10% of the
membership then a vote will be taken which can override any decision of
leadership?

> > Another quite common option is to select a leader and let him choose the
> > rest of the committee if you're forming a new committee. If a current
> > leader is replace a new leader is chosen by the BOD and the current
> > committee, with advise from the leaving leader.
> Another possibility is to let the people volunteer for the committee and
> let the committee choose the head....

That depends on the situation I would think but we need to have some kind
of governing structure that approves these things. Hopefully simple.

> > I think a committee should have to disband itself.
> No, it should be able to be disbanded by the BOD, also. They're the ones
> who created it... even if it was at the direction of the membership.

It would be dangerous if the technical oversight committee disbanded
itself. Depends on the committee. Keep it flexible.