Re: Bylwas Revision[2]: COMMITTEES

In message <Pine(dot)LNX(dot)3(dot)96(dot)990402162055(dot)25843A-100000(at)rivendell>, Will Lowe
writ
es:
>> - if a committee is no longer necessary it should be disbanded. This can be
>
>> done by the BOD or a vote of the membership.
>What sort of vote? Quorum, two-thirds?
>

I'm not sure, that's why I posed the question.

>> Actually, should the committee have an official membership?
>Yes. If a comittee is going to "be responsible for the day-to-day running
>of SPI" (i.e., they're going to make day-to-day descisions on behalf of
>the company), we may eventually end up in legal trouble if there's no one
>who is officially responsible.
>

I agree.

>> - should non-contributing members be able to serve on committees?
>> - what should the internal structure of the committee look like?
>On the same tack, should committees be required to hold discussion on
>publically-available lists? I understand that in some cases this simply
>isn't an option, but in many cases it might be best if all committee
>discussions were done in front of the world. Maybe a list for the
>committee which only the committee can send to, but everybody can read?
>

I think one list for the committee and the public, and one for just the
committee... that way private issues can stay private, and the public can
chime in on everything else. I'll word it vaguely though, it can be
specified in the charters as applicable/necessary.

Nils.