Re: Amended Resolution

From: "Benj(dot) Mako Hill" <mako(at)debian(dot)org>
To: 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 21:45:49
Message-ID: 20031009214547.GJ19143@nozomi
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:54:06PM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> 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.

I agree with Jimmy on most of this including the bits I did not quote.

I like elections of 3/3/4 (or something similar) with three years
terms because it maintains continuity, which some people (probably
myself included although I haven't thought about it enough yet) think
is useful. Mostly though, it's just convenient. We elected 3 people in
February and now, not quite a year but more a bit more than half a
year later, we are in a position to elect three more. That puts its in
a good position to complete the cycle in another year which will, in
turn, put us in a position to have one election, roughly each year,
for roughly a third of the board.

In terms of specifics of how this change would be represented in the
bylaws, and the roll of officer elections versus non-officer elections
and so on, I think this is a discussion that we should continue on the
bylaws committe list or here only after we've reach some kind of
decision about whether we want a bylaws referendum or a election

> 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.

Avoiding having to do this is why I like the idea of keeping 8-12 in
the bylaws, at least for now, and having a couplre more than the
minimum of seats on the board. This gives us a little bit of a buffer.


Benjamin Mako Hill

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martin Schulze 2003-10-10 08:37:27 Re: Amended Resolution
Previous Message John Goerzen 2003-10-09 21:32:10 Re: Amended Resolution