Re: proposed replacement bylaws

From: Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com>
Cc: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: proposed replacement bylaws
Date: 2016-07-02 20:59:51
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

Bdale Garbee writes ("proposed replacement bylaws"):
> At our in-person board meeting earlier this year, the board members
> present worked with Mishi Choudhary from SFLC on the details, and for
> some weeks we've had a draft set of bylaws that everyone on the board
> seems to be comfortable with. I present them here for review and
> discussion, after which I hope we can have a vote of the contributing
> membership to adopt these as SPI's bylaws for the future.

Thanks. It is, in general, admirably clear, and I think with a bit of
work it will be a jolly good thing.

My comments in detail:

Art III s4

The mebers' meeting requisition should be 10% of the _Contributing_

Is the part "... shall constitute presence in person at a meeting"
really effective in US law ?

Art III s8

This is very confusing. Is it the intent to abolish quorum
requirement for meetings of the members ?

Art IV s3

This seems to define annually-relected Directors, biannually-reelected
ones, and triannually-reelected ones. The wording has perhaps been
borrowed from a transitional arrangement ? I think this needs to be

Art IV s5

There should be a power for Contributing members to remove a Director.

Art IV s8

Why the long list of communications methods here (and in IV.11) but
not in Art III s4 ?

Art XI s1

Amending the bylaws should require the consent of the Contributing
membership, not of the Baord.



Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Susan Spencer 2016-07-03 01:03:26 Re: proposed replacement bylaws
Previous Message Keith Packard 2016-07-02 20:51:34 Re: proposed replacement bylaws