Re: Next step -- Deciding on output

From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org>
To: spi-bylaws(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Next step -- Deciding on output
Date: 2003-02-05 19:08:53
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-bylaws

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


Browse spi-bylaws by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Goerzen 2003-02-05 19:13:06 Re: Next step -- Deciding on output
Previous Message Taral 2003-02-04 22:32:08 Re: Next step -- Deciding on output