Re: Bylaws Revision: VOTING[4]

On Fri, 28 May 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:

> On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 02:33:02PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> > I thought the cooperative and its members model was pretty apt.
> I do, too, personally. I was wondering if he had a better one, though.

The only other thing I could think of would be an "industry
association" like the (former?) SPA is for proprietary developers. But I
think a cooperative is also accurate, as part of the job of SPI (as I
understand it) is providing a single place for "job orders" to come
through, which are then either assigned or claimed (probably the latter)
by the members.

> > Interesting - what are the requirements for a Debian voting membership?
> > Here it seems the voting will be limited to contributing members, who may
> > (or may not) have a higher interest in participating. And the model here
> > seems like it will be more like the committees do a good deal of the grunt
> > work.
> Basicly, be an accepted Developer.. ie, be working on some part of Debian.
> Right, so I questions the need to lower the quorum figures. I like where
> they're at or I'd even raise them in the case of BOD
> additions/subtractions.
>
Right, I think a relatively high quorum for something as major as
adding/removing members of the BOD would be wise. I guess it all depends
on what kinds of issues would "normally" be presented for voting on by the
general membership. Presumably most voting would take place in the BOD,
committees (and short-term "task forces" appointed by them for one-time
events), and only major issues or revocations of these other votes would
be presented to the membership as a whole (one might call it the
"committee of the whole" as they do in Congress in the US). Is that a
correct perception of how things will be handled?

Lynn