Re: #04: Electronic Meetings

[chairman hat on]
Up for discussion:

04 Holding a meeting "electronically" is not limited to real-time. Email
counts.

The practice of meetings by email seems to be out of order.

Perhaps more committees will alleviate the need to email voting, if
the board is not supposed to concern itself with day-to-day business.

Article 7, para. 3 prevents email voting.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, John Goerzen wrote:

> [chairman hat on]
> Up for discussion:
>
> 04 Holding a meeting "electronically" is not limited to real-time. Email
> counts.
>
> The practice of meetings by email seems to be out of order.
>
> Perhaps more committees will alleviate the need to email voting, if
> the board is not supposed to concern itself with day-to-day business.
>
> Article 7, para. 3 prevents email voting.

"The Board of Directors shall have the control and management of the
affairs and business of this organization. Such Board of Directors shall
only act in the name of the organization when it shall be regularly
convened by its chairman after due notice to all the directors of such
meeting."

If the President sends a notice to the board that for the next week, a
meeting will be taking place in spi-board(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, that is
notice, that is meeting, that meets the requirements of article 7
paragraph 3.

I don't see that as blocking it.

On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 11:12:16AM -0500, David Graham wrote:
> I don't see that as blocking it.

Well, IMHO, we first need to decide whether non-real-time meetings are a
desirable possibility, then how they should be held, and finally whether we
should modify the bylaws.

To that end:

I view non-real-time resolutions as an undesirable outcome, but one which
may be necessary. I would prefer to find other alternatives.

However, if they must happen, my largest criticism is that they are
happening behind closed doors. This could be alleviated by other
open-meetings provisions in the bylaws.

I think it's OK with the board deciding the mechanisms of their meetings, so
long as they comply with basic requirements (quorum, sufficient notice,
public publishing)

If we decide that e-mail meetings are acceptable, we should amend the bylaws
thusly. I view the e-mail meetings as, at best, a stretch of the language
in the bylaws.

Comments?

-- John

Meetings can be held in spi-private instead of spi-board. They're still
email meetings, other people can still express their views, and the
meeting is still on record as it's happening.

=--------------------------------------------------=
David "cdlu" Graham cdlu(at)pkl(dot)net
Guelph, Ontario SMS: +1 519 760 1409

On Tue, 1 Apr 2003, John Goerzen wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 11:12:16AM -0500, David Graham wrote:
> > I don't see that as blocking it.
>
> Well, IMHO, we first need to decide whether non-real-time meetings are a
> desirable possibility, then how they should be held, and finally whether we
> should modify the bylaws.
>
> To that end:
>
> I view non-real-time resolutions as an undesirable outcome, but one which
> may be necessary. I would prefer to find other alternatives.
>
> However, if they must happen, my largest criticism is that they are
> happening behind closed doors. This could be alleviated by other
> open-meetings provisions in the bylaws.
>
> I think it's OK with the board deciding the mechanisms of their meetings, so
> long as they comply with basic requirements (quorum, sufficient notice,
> public publishing)
>
> If we decide that e-mail meetings are acceptable, we should amend the bylaws
> thusly. I view the e-mail meetings as, at best, a stretch of the language
> in the bylaws.
>
> Comments?
>
> -- John
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-bylaws mailing list
> Spi-bylaws(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-bylaws
>

On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 09:43:46AM -0500, David Graham wrote:
> Meetings can be held in spi-private instead of spi-board. They're still
> email meetings, other people can still express their views, and the
> meeting is still on record as it's happening.

That would satisfy me. I think the goal is to get the info in the hands of
the members, and that's what I mean when I say "public". I don't see it as
necessary to get the info in the hands of non-members, and so spi-private
would be acceptable in my opinion.