Re: Prioritization draft

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale(at)gag(dot)com>
To: John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org>
Cc: spi-bylaws(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Prioritization draft
Date: 2003-02-26 21:11:52
Message-ID: 87fzqaagrr.fsf@rover.gag.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: spi-bylaws

John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org> writes:

> 13 Annual re-election of board members.
>
> 39 A method is needed for transitioning from the current board to a full
> board whose members are re-elected annually.

Board members serving for a specified term is probably a good idea. I
strongly suggest that you not propose all board members be re-elected each
year, though. A staggered system where board members serve for two years
with half being re-elected in alternating years, or board members serving
for three years with a third up for re-election each year would provide a
balance between continuity and "freshness."

Serving for a longer term than a year shouldn't be a problem if there is an
effective method for dealing with a board member who becomes inactive in
mid-term, which appropriately appears higher on your priority list.

As for a transition plan, I've seen that handled in the past by including an
explicit assertion about who will serve what remaining terms before
re-election in the resolution to accept the bylaws changes.

> 31 Contributing members who fail to turn in any ballot at all should be
> subject to membership committee review.

The description of a contributing member is someone who participates actively
in the community and has the right to vote... this item implies converting
that right into an obligation? I'm not sure I see the point of that.

Bdale

Responses

Browse spi-bylaws by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Goerzen 2003-02-26 21:19:35 Re: Prioritization draft
Previous Message John Goerzen 2003-02-26 19:09:47 Prioritization draft