Re: Amended Resolution

From: Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy(at)debian(dot)org>
To: David Graham <cdlu(at)railfan(dot)ca>
Cc: John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org>, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, spi-board(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Amended Resolution
Date: 2003-10-09 20:54:06
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:24:56PM -0400, David Graham wrote:
> The board should appoint an interim board member (the DPL would be a good
> candidate) on a mandate that he shall serve until and only until the
> by-law referendum and/or an election is complete, or until January 1st,
> which ever comes first.

Why not just do the election first, as we have been planning to do? That
way we will retain the nice fact that roughly one third of the board
will have been elected at once, which will make it easy to do a 3/3/4
type of division in terms of election-related turnover each year. We'd
If the board acts on this at its Tuesday meeting, the whole process will
finish pretty soon, and even sooner if less than 30 days are waited
before starting the voting period. January 1st is just an arbitrary,
though pretty date, and I really have no reason to be even close to
certain that a bylaws amendment can be passed before then. It's quite
possible, but not close to certain. If it doesn't happen, then we'll
just have to do another reappointment, or else start the election then,
to be superceded when the bylaws do finally get amended, and we'll just
have even more transitions of "power" than we would have with the plan
already being considered.

I'd suggest doing an election now-ish, and then any subsequent elections
(aside from random vacancies) around the vicinity of our annual meetings
in July. The election now would really be for slightly less than a 3
year term; it would be until July 2006, and next July's election would
be for a term lasting until July 2007, and so on. This way, we can have
a nice, smooth rotation. Random vacancies could be handled like the
election now would be; namely, a special election would be held for the
vacant seats, and the winners would serve for the remainder of the terms
associated with those seats. This seems fairest to me, and it's the way
that many vacancies in the U.S. Congress are handled, which at least
gives it some "street cred."

- Jimmy Kaplowitz


Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Goerzen 2003-10-09 21:07:54 Re: Amended Resolution
Previous Message David Graham 2003-10-09 20:38:42 Re: Amended Resolution