Re: [draft] Proposed resolution 2003-01-06.wta.2

From: Branden Robinson / SPI Treasurer <branden+spi-treasurer(at)deadbeast(dot)net>
To: board(at)spi-inc(dot)org, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: [draft] Proposed resolution 2003-01-06.wta.2
Date: 2003-01-07 17:00:29
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 04:42:37PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Branden Robinson / SPI Treasurer writes ("Re: [draft] Proposed resolution 2003-01-06.wta.2"):
> > On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:27:07AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I suggest that it would be better to add some text describing what we
> > > want the committee to fix.
> >
> > Not if we want a standing committee; the existing proposal doesn't
> > address that, however.
> Eh ? You mean, you agree that we should tell the committee what we
> expect of it ? Or do you disagree ?

In my opinion that's adequately addressed by Wichert's proposal, amended
with your "b.".

> I agree with those who says that that the problem with quoracy should
> not be fixed by changing the bylaws to (eg) reduce the quorum, or the
> like. It should be fixed by appointing board members who turn up, and
> by shortening meetings. We're working on shortening the meetings by
> preparing resolution texts in advance, which I expect will help.

Your position is not illegitimate. I disagree with imposing it on the
proposed committee as an orthodoxy, however. Or even with nudging and
hinting them in that direction.

> I disagree. I'm worried that the bylaws revision - which is an
> important task with serious and long-term implications - will become
> derailed by the quoracy problem, which I think is not caused by
> problems in the bylaws but by the composition of the board (and thus
> indirectly by the board selection process).
> Even if the committee ultimately agrees with me, I don't want it to be
> spending its time arguing over this contentious issue. Bylaws changes
> should have widespread consensus support, and the drafting should be a
> cooperative, not a combative, process. If contentious issues like
> this one become dragged in, it may well derail other more productive
> discussion.

I feel that keeping the discussion on track should be the responsibility
of the committee chair. Let us (the Board) please not micro-manage the

> > If certain Board members don't want the by-laws amended to address
> > meeting quorum problems, I suggest those Board members attend the
> > meetings for a change, and thereby attenuate the impetus for making any
> > such amendments.
> Please stop slinging mud - see my previous message.

Do you assert that your Board meeting attendance record over the past 18
months has been exemplary?

You vetoed your removal from the Board for non-attendance. Given that,
I feel a responsibility to censure you in this relatively mild way for
your poor attendance. If you successfuly re-dedicate your energies to
your SPI Board membership, I'm more than happy to stop. Your insights
are often valuable and philosophically you're in consonance with the
charter of SPI as I understand it. But you're only an asset when you
trouble yourself to be one. Otherwise you're just part of the reason we
can't make quorum.

G. Branden Robinson, Treasurer
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ian Jackson 2003-01-07 17:00:39 Re: [draft] Proposed resolution 2003-01-06.wta.2
Previous Message David Graham 2003-01-07 16:47:08 Re: [draft] Proposed resolution 2003-01-06.wta.2