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

The forwarded mail was already sent to spi-general but does not display
in the web archives yet. I am hereby re-sending it so that it becomes
public, and am apologizing for the noise to those who already received it.

-------- Message transféré --------
Sujet : Re: [RESULT] Replace the bylaws of Software in the Public Interest
Date : Sat, 13 Apr 2019 13:47:04 -0400
De : Filipus Klutiero <chealer(at)gmail(dot)com>
Pour : Tim Potter <tpot(at)frungy(dot)org>, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org

Thank you Tim, hi everyone,

On 19-04-09 15 h 13, Tim Potter wrote:
> Hi everyone. The results fo the recent vote to replace the SPI bylaws
> have been calculated.
>
> Out of 216 contributing members 129 votes were cast. 125 votes to
> accept the new bylaws to and 4 voted to not accept the new bylaws.
>
> Article 12 of the curent bylaws[1] requires that two thirds of
> members, 145 in this case, vote in the affirmative for bylaws to be
> altered, amended, repealed or added to.
>
> As such the vote to replace the bylaws did NOT pass.
>
> Thank you to everyone who participated in the voting process.

I am sorry that the replacement did not pass. And looking at how the
votes come to such a result, I cannot help but feel partially guilty, as
I did not vote to accept the new bylaws.

But I remember very well having received the invitation to vote and
decided not to vote. I had been hearing about this change for many
months. As a relatively recent SPI member, I thought there were old
problems with the bylaws which were identified before I joined, and I
imagined the new bylaws fixed some of these problems. In my mind, there
were other members who had been involved for longer than myself and who
were aware of the issue which were qualified to take that decision, so I
saw no interest in educating myself on the issues of the "old" bylaws as:
1. I thought they would be history soon.
2. I didn't remember any controversy about the bylaws change and assumed
the vote was a formality.

One may argue that members should be familiar with bylaws and that I
should have known of that risk, but as a volunteer who is involved not
just with SPI but with many other projects (and I think by definition
all SPI voters are involved in other projects), I do not have a level of
involvement in SPI sufficient to know by heart an article which matters
as infrequently as the problematic one (ARTICLE TWELVE - AMENDMENTS).

I wondered if I had been negligent, reading the voting communication too
fast, but after looking at my mailbox (which might be missing 1 mail), I
didn't find any indication that abstention effectively opposed the
change. Judging from
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2019-March/003965.html
alone I think many members may have failed to realized the impact of
abstaining.

I still haven't compared the bylaws and don't know whether the new
bylaws should have passed, but:
1. I strongly suspect that a large majority of contributing members
would prefer the proposed bylaws.
2. If a new vote quickly proposes the very same thing, I for one will
compare the current and proposed bylaws and vote for the proposed bylaws
if I find them superior.

I use this opportunity to thank Dr. Michlmayr for his service on the
board. And thanks to Jimmy Kaplowitz for accepting to serve as president.

--
Filipus Klutiero
http://www.philippecloutier.com