Re: #03: Board meeting quorum issues

I, too, wish to vote in favour of this amendment.

From my nice, shiny new email address.

David Graham, lacking .signature, lacking gpg key, sitting on downed
system. :(

On Fri, 30 May 2003, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:

> On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 03:36:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 04:31:29PM -0400, David Graham wrote:
> > > That must have been the best piece of work I've ever written. No
> > > criticism! :)
> >
> > Shall we go ahead and schedule a vote on this part then:
>
> After discussing David's draft with him on IRC, he mentioned that he was
> uncomfortable with the wording, suggesting that it might be open to
> future misinterpretation. Therefore, I have come up with a rewritten
> wording, which expresses nearly the same thought, and which David says
> he's happy with:
>
> Strike:
> The presence of not less than two-thirds of the board members shall
> constitute a quorum and shall be necessary to conduct the business of
> this organization, but a lesser number may adjourn the meeting for a
> period of not more than two weeks from the date scheduled by these
> by-laws and the Secretary shall cause a notice of this scheduled meeting
> to be sent to all those members who were not present at the meeting
> originally called. A quorum as hereinbefore set forth shall be required
> at any adjourned meeting.
>
> Replace with:
> There shall be no quorum requirement for a meeting to take place.
> However, no individual vote taken by the board may be binding without
> the participation of at least half the board members. If two-thirds of
> the board members participate, then a simple majority shall be required
> for passage, unless the item being voted on sets a higher requirement.
> If fewer than two-thirds of the board members participate, then
> unanimous approval of the members present with no abstentions shall be
> required.
>
> The only substantive difference is the addition of the possibility for
> the author of a given resolution to require more than a simple majority
> for passage. This does not weaken the requirements at all, for there is
> no way that a resolution could set a lower requirement (i.e., fewer than
> a simple majority). It only allows the author of a potentially
> controversial resolution to require greater unanimity when appropriate.
> I think this is an improvement rather than a weakening.
>
> To move the process along a bit, I formally propose the above amendment,
> and I vote "yes" on it. If people want to revise further, I have no
> objection to that, but since all of us (including me) have taken as long
> as we have, I thought I'd do something formal rather than just
> continuing discussion.
>
> - Jimmy Kaplowitz
> jimmy(at)debian(dot)org
>