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: 2016-07-04 10:18:50
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: proposed replacement bylaws"):
> Susan Spencer <susan(dot)spencer(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > If this section describes what actually occurred during the first three
> > years of SPI, and if one-third of the Directors are elected each year,
> > then this section is correct.
> I wasn't present at the original founding of the organization, but our
> model of operation for a number of years is to try and re-elect a third
> of the directors each year to three year terms. We were advised to
> include the startup language even though we clearly aren't just starting
> up... so I think this is ok as it stands.

I really can't see how it can be OK as it stands. It doesn't describe
the actual situation.

If the startup language needs to be there, then it should be framed
with something like "initially, at the first set of board elections in

And then there should be a new paragraph "Thereafter: ..." which
explains how everything is done.

Would you like me to suggest actual wording ?


Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ian Jackson 2016-07-04 10:20:41 Re: proposed replacement bylaws
Previous Message Josh berkus 2016-07-04 04:33:06 Re: proposed replacement bylaws