On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 11:07:05PM -0500, Will Lowe wrote:
> > > [somehow I'd like to phrase this into a good sentence. Suggestions? :)]
> > I'm not totally sure what you're driving at... on the surface, it's obvious
> > that the membership controls the organization.. ultimatly. Surely you are
> Well, it'd be nice to make the distinction that "the _members_ control
> SPI", not "the board controls SPI". At the moment, it is (on the
> surface) the other way around.
Except in the broadest terms, that's for a membership section of this
document. It's spelled out, maybe in a section that defines the board or a
section that defines voting, *how* the board is controled...
>
> > > [where do we state the complete list of membership criteria? Here? In
> > > the charter for the membership committee? What should the criteria be?]
> How about just like we do for Debian:
>
> A member must meet the criteria set forth by the Membership
> Committee acting on behalf of the Company.
>
> That way, the membership requirements can be more flexible. We could
> even set it up so that the membership committee, in circumstances of
> extreme uncertainty, can thus query the current membership and say "We're
> sitting on the fence. Should 'Joe' be a member?"
That might work -- it'd be an interesting experiment -- but it's usually
good in the "entity" world (SPI is a legal entity/"person") to have atleast
*some* guidelines so the outside world can look on and see that all is well
(such as policies of non-discrimination, for example)
>
>