Re: Next step -- Deciding on output

From: David Graham <cdlu(at)pkl(dot)net>
To: John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org>
Cc: spi-bylaws(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Next step -- Deciding on output
Date: 2003-02-06 18:29:24
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-bylaws

Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
> > > On a ballot it would look something like that plus "accept this change?
> > > [y/n]"
> >
> > I disagree with this. Line iteming the bylaws doesn't seem particularly
> > wise right now, since we're likely to make large-scope changes. If the
> > board has issues with our proposed resolution, they will send it back to
> > us to address them.
> I agree with you. Another problem is that if we have too many options,
> people get confused and things move slower.

Point taken, though note it'll be up to the membership (and an enormous
amount of the membership) rather than the board to approve any changes we

To that end I'd suggest (possibly) putting forward a basic new set of
by-laws and a separate set of amendments to those modified by-laws which
risk being more controversial, if we find the need to.

This would allow the important/critical changes to the by-laws such as
allowing disclarities and things that don't work to be cleaned up without
causing all modifications to fail if too many members disagree with some
other changes that, for example, shift power around or fundamentally
change some aspect of the way SPI runs its business.

> Are we all close enough that we could agree on two documents:
> 1. A specific amendment proposal, defining only what changes and omitting
> rationale/background (no WHEREAS clause) This will contain things like
> "Replace section 5 with this text" and is intended to be voted on.
> It would be a full document to be voted on at once.
> 2. A document listing rationale for changes and background for them
> (combining two of the documents I had first proposed).
> Sound reasonable?

I think that only one document is necessary between these two items, but
a second document be needed as mentionned above. Though I'll agree to this
proposal in the interests of getting on with it. :)

- ----------------------------------------------------
David "cdlu" Graham cdlu(at)pkl(dot)net
Guelph, Ontario SMS: +1 519 760 1409

Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see



Browse spi-bylaws by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Goerzen 2003-02-06 22:40:28 Identification of problems
Previous Message John Goerzen 2003-02-06 15:02:23 Re: Next step -- Deciding on output