Re: Member communications II

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
Cc: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, MJ Ray <mjr(at)phonecoop(dot)coop>
Subject: Re: Member communications II
Date: 2008-12-22 18:14:00
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Member communications II"):
> What is the problem we are trying to solve?
> The board's continual failures in communication and following protocol.


> How does this motion address the problem any more than the other motions
> that have already been passed?

It makes it clear that the Board is supposed to defer late business
rather than proceed with it - a matter which seems to have been
doubted. It also sets out what the basis might be for proceeding
anyway, the mechanism for making such a decision, and holds specific
officers responsible for enforcement.

But to be honest, I would be satisfied with a clear statement from the
Secretary and President that they will, henceforth, defer late

If such a statement is not forthcoming then I would like the Board to
explicitly vote on my proposal, or something like it. At least then
next time it comes to elections we will know who to depose.


Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joerg Jaspert 2008-12-23 08:45:56 Re: Meeting agenda robot
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2008-12-22 17:52:49 Re: Member communications II