Re: proposed replacement bylaws

From: Bill Allombert <Bill(dot)Allombert(at)math(dot)u-bordeaux1(dot)fr>
To: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: proposed replacement bylaws
Date: 2016-07-04 12:17:17
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 03:34:12PM +0200, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> So, I guess there's a trade-off here. We can have really simple bylaws
> and give the board the ability to modify them, trusting that our nearly
> complete transparency of operations and the legal context in which we
> operate provide the ability to observe and react should the board ever
> "go nuts". I'm quite comfortable with this approach, but I recognize
> that not everyone may be.

I suppose a lot of people would consider a board changing the bylaws without
approval from the members to be going nuts.



Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hilmar Lapp 2016-07-04 14:44:23 Re: proposed replacement bylaws
Previous Message Ian Jackson 2016-07-04 10:33:41 Re: proposed replacement bylaws