Re: Next step -- Deciding on output

Taral wrote:
>Could have fooled me. Most full resolutions look like:
>
>WHEREAS, <reasons for doing this>
>RESOLVED, <things to do>.
>
What I'm suggesting is that in our proposed motion/resolution/whatever, we
leave off the WHEREAS part. I think that we do not need to be expressing a
"sense of the membership" about background information, just getting it
done. This also makes reforms easier to pass because disagreements on
background information will not lead to blocking passage.

I think that even including the word "RESOLVED" in it anywhere will be more
structured than anything SPI has seen yet :-)

>Note that motions and resolutions are different. The secretary of SPI
>has been (incorrectly) referring to motions as resolutions. That is
>their prerogative.

Good catch. I looked this up in the bylaws and it seems to be correct
there, just misused elsewhere.

-- John

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 01:08:53PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> What I'm suggesting is that in our proposed motion/resolution/whatever, we
> leave off the WHEREAS part. I think that we do not need to be expressing a
> "sense of the membership" about background information, just getting it
> done. This also makes reforms easier to pass because disagreements on
> background information will not lead to blocking passage.

For precedent on how this has been done in the past in SPI, I refer you to:

http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/resolution-1999-09-21.nl

Also it is important to note that Articles 1 and 2 are immutable.

-- John

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 01:08:53PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> What I'm suggesting is that in our proposed motion/resolution/whatever, we
> leave off the WHEREAS part. I think that we do not need to be expressing a
> "sense of the membership" about background information, just getting it
> done. This also makes reforms easier to pass because disagreements on
> background information will not lead to blocking passage.

I seem to remember that there is a good reason for including the
motivation for a resolution within the text of the resolution itself. I
will attempt to locate the rationale for this.

> I think that even including the word "RESOLVED" in it anywhere will be more
> structured than anything SPI has seen yet :-)

I consider this a good thing. SPI's lack of express structure is a
double-edged sword.

--
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 <20030205190853(dot)GA24855(at)christoph(dot)complete(dot)org>, John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org> writes:

> What I'm suggesting is that in our proposed
> motion/resolution/whatever, we leave off the WHEREAS part. I think
> that we do not need to be expressing a "sense of the membership"
> about background information, just getting it done. This also
> makes reforms easier to pass because disagreements on background
> information will not lead to blocking passage.

I might be missing something here. I could not care less
about the legalistic phraseology; but the important point is that the
first thing stated is the reason for the change, and then comes the
proposal; I would strongly recommend that we do not divorce the two.

Som if you are mewrely talking abuot psuedo legalese, fine,
but the underlying principle of keeping the reationale with the
proposed changes, I would tend to oppose separation.

manoj
--
It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three
benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never
to use either. Mark Twain
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 Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 01:54:43PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I might be missing something here. I could not care less
> about the legalistic phraseology; but the important point is that the

<chairman hat on>
I think that we should table this question for now as the
time for its discussion has passed, but when the time comes to draft the
document, we will re-visit the issue and can change our plans at that time.
</chairman hat>