Summary of comments

I summarized most of everyone's comments in one document, and one thing
struck me almost immediately: we're trying to do to much at once. Many
of the proposed "problems" are minor little changes to a document that
looks like it's going to undergo some serious revision before we're done
with it.

In the interests of completeness, I've attached the document I drafted.
It is an attempt to summarize the more important (and non-overlapping)
issues presented by each person.

I recommend everyone look it over, and select two (2) things you want to
see done first. That way we'll only have at most 10 things to deal with.
Once we've dealt with those 10, we can pick another 10. Otherwise this
will quickly become totally unmanageable. We don't want to have
neverending, branching discussions that rapidly lose focus and are
difficult to summarize as a concise change to the bylaws.

--
Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
"Most parents have better things to do with their time than take care of
their children." -- Me

>>>>> In article <20030217054758(dot)GA16206(at)taral(dot)net>, Taral
>>>>> <taral(at)taral(dot)net> writes:

> I summarized most of everyone's comments in one document, and one
> thing struck me almost immediately: we're trying to do to much at
> once. Many of the proposed "problems" are minor little changes to a
> document that looks like it's going to undergo some serious
> revision before we're done with it.

A few corrections.
Issues the board wishes us to consider:
From a recent mail from the president:

======================================================================
* Determine a protocol, or rules of conduct, that would facilitate
"Getting to where we can conduct business without getting
embroiled in continous counter productive flaming is critical to
the future of our organization."
"Maybe we need to write a referee into the bylaws."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Replace:
======================================================================
> Issues by Manoj Srivastava:
>
> * A mode should exist where major arguments for each item on the agenda
> can be presented and voted for in email. It may be necessary to allow
> these votes to be changed after a meeting.
> * A mechanism should exist to handle MIA members, as well as extended
> absences by board members (e.g. vacations/sabbaticals). A possible
> solution is to have a set fraction of the board members who must be
> active, and if the active set ever drops below that number, then one
> or more inactive members are required to return to active duty,
> possibly in a FIFO manner.
======================================================================

With:
======================================================================
* The board has been stymied often due to an inability to make
quorum, and not being empowered to make decisions in an offline
manner, failing quorum. This issue needs be addressed.
======================================================================

The remarks meant as explanatory examples ought not to be
codified as changes I want to see incorporated in the bylaws.

> I recommend everyone look it over, and select two (2) things you
> want to see done first. That way we'll only have at most 10 things
> to deal with. Once we've dealt with those 10, we can pick another
> 10. Otherwise this will quickly become totally unmanageable. We
> don't want to have neverending, branching discussions that rapidly
> lose focus and are difficult to summarize as a concise change to
> the bylaws.

I am not sure if we are even on the same page, looking at the
huge difference in levels of detail of the changes proposed. There
are a few requests for sweeping changes to the bylaws to address
grave and recurrent problems with the boards ability to conduct
busines, and at the other end are minor tweaks to the language,
which are remniscent of a final proof reading corrections.

For the record, I consider
======================================================================
a) Rules of conduct designed to facilitate constructive debate and
designed to enable the board to reach decisions efficiently
b) Ability to make decisions while keeping in mind that real time
meetings for a globally distributed board present difficulties in
making quorum
======================================================================
critical.

manoj
--
Human society - man in a group - rises out of its lethargy to new
levels of productivity only under the stimulus of deeply inspiring and
commonly appreciated goals. A lethargic world serves no cause well; a
spirited world working diligently toward earnestly desired goals
provides the means and the strength toward which many ends can be
satisfied...to unparalleled social accomplishment. Dr. Lloyd
V. Berkner, in "The History of Manned Space Flight"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta(at)acm(dot)org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 11:47:58PM -0600, Taral wrote:
> I recommend everyone look it over, and select two (2) things you want to
> see done first. That way we'll only have at most 10 things to deal with.
> Once we've dealt with those 10, we can pick another 10. Otherwise this
> will quickly become totally unmanageable. We don't want to have
> neverending, branching discussions that rapidly lose focus and are
> difficult to summarize as a concise change to the bylaws.

Just so I understand what you're saying:

Are you suggesting the above for the Identification of Problems or the
Drafting of Solutions phase? (See
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-bylaws/2003/000011.html) Or are you
proposing an entirely different method?

If you're talking about the Identification of Problems phase, are you
suggesting we abandon the proposal at
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-bylaws/2003/000033.html? (It
actually looks fairly similar to what you're proposing.)

Thanks,
John

On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 12:20:58AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> A few corrections.
> Issues the board wishes us to consider:
> From a recent mail from the president:

I've got no problem adding that to the list for consideration, but let's not
imply that it's something the board directed us, as there was no board vote
on that issue -- at least not that I'm aware of.

-- John

On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 09:46:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> If you're talking about the Identification of Problems phase, are you
> suggesting we abandon the proposal at
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-bylaws/2003/000033.html? (It
> actually looks fairly similar to what you're proposing.)

Yes. I think most of the things on the list bear addressing at some
point, so an incremental processing (identify, solve, identify, solve,
etc.) seems to be a preferable solution. New problems may show
themselves as we solve others.

--
Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
"Most parents have better things to do with their time than take care of
their children." -- Me

On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 12:33:25PM -0600, Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 09:46:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > If you're talking about the Identification of Problems phase, are you
> > suggesting we abandon the proposal at
> > http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-bylaws/2003/000033.html? (It
> > actually looks fairly similar to what you're proposing.)
>
> Yes. I think most of the things on the list bear addressing at some
> point, so an incremental processing (identify, solve, identify, solve,
> etc.) seems to be a preferable solution. New problems may show
> themselves as we solve others.

That makes sense. I just want to make sure that we keep the conversations
on-topic, orderly, and comprehensive -- making sure we've looked at all the
problems brought to our attention.

It sounds like you're suggesting that once we have our list of problems, we
can just look at each one and either reject it as not applicable wrt bylaws
amendments, or implement an amendment for it?

Sounds reasonable to me. Less work, still orderly. Comments anyone?

-- John

>>>>> In article <20030217202447(dot)GA29163(at)wile(dot)excelhustler(dot)com>, John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org> writes:

> It sounds like you're suggesting that once we have our list of
> problems, we can just look at each one and either reject it as not
> applicable wrt bylaws amendments, or implement an amendment for it?

I was thinking that prioritizing the issues at hand would
also be useful, so we work on the most important issues first, and
the lower priority items come along as we come to a close.

manoj
--
Old MacDonald had an agricultural real estate tax abatement.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta(at)acm(dot)org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 03:02:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>>>> In article <20030217202447(dot)GA29163(at)wile(dot)excelhustler(dot)com>, John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org> writes:
>
> > It sounds like you're suggesting that once we have our list of
> > problems, we can just look at each one and either reject it as not
> > applicable wrt bylaws amendments, or implement an amendment for it?
>
> I was thinking that prioritizing the issues at hand would
> also be useful, so we work on the most important issues first, and
> the lower priority items come along as we come to a close.

OK, how about this for the immediate future then:

1. Taral issues a combined document for our inspection

2. We do some brief priortization into some general categories (high,
medium, low). I imagine that finding consensus on this will be
easy.

3. Taral issues a new document ordered by priorities

4. Using the Subject line as an identifier, we can discuss several items
concurrently in e-mail, starting with high-priority items. For each
item, we will decide if the best solution involves a bylaws change, and
if so, propose one. If not, we will communicate changes to other bodies
within SPI if appropriate (Board, membership committee, etc)

If this sounds like a good template, I'll rewrite our agenda tonight.

-- John