Re: Proposed SPI Bylaws Amendment

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 11:14:25PM -0800, Michael Cardenas wrote:
> As a contributing member of SPI, I reject this proposal.

As a contribitung member, you may speak against a proposal, or if the
proposal receives enough seconds to be put to the membership, vote
against it.

> If we are successful in our efforts, there may be hundreds of
> open source organizations which are part of SPI in the future, and 4
> would be a terribly small number of people to make a decision for all
> of them.

But one person would be a terribly small number of people to make a
decision for all of us, so, with all due apologies, you don't get to
single handedly reject it.

In any event, SPI doesn't make decisions for its member projects,
it simply manages (some of) its projects' assets in trust. Whether it
takes one person or a hundred to make decisions for SPI makes literally
no difference to the projects under it.

For those playing along at home, the motion has been seconded by

Rune B. Broberg
Scott Dier
Theodore Ts'o
Ean Schuessler
Anthony Towns
Peter Palfrader
Glen McGrath
Neal H. Walfield
Pierre Machard
Rene Engelhard
David Graham

and arguably Jimmy Kaplowitz; which means two (or four if Jimmy can't
second his own motion, and more than 24 contributing members have joined
this month) additional seconds are required before the motion is required
to be put to the membership.

Cheers,
aj, unimpressed with the choice between apathetic inactivity, and
outraged, obstructive inactivity

--
Anthony Towns <aj(at)humbug(dot)org(dot)au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``Australian Linux Lovefest Heads West''
-- linux.conf.au, Perth W.A., 22nd-25th January 2003