Re: [draft] Proposed resolution 2003-01-06.wta.2

From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org>
To: Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: board(at)spi-inc(dot)org, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: [draft] Proposed resolution 2003-01-06.wta.2
Date: 2003-01-07 17:15:29
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:

> I agree with those who says that that the problem with quoracy should
> not be fixed by changing the bylaws to (eg) reduce the quorum, or the
> like. It should be fixed by appointing board members who turn up,
> and

While I am one that agrees with you on this issue (not reducing the
quorom requirement), I nevertheless disagree that this issue should be
off-limits to the committee. There are tangential issues that do have
an effect -- things such as providing for removal of board members by
SPI contributing members, less ambiguity about what exactly
constitutes a meeting, etc.

> derailed by the quoracy problem, which I think is not caused by
> problems in the bylaws but by the composition of the board (and thus
> indirectly by the board selection process).

Which is part of the bylaws.

> Even if the committee ultimately agrees with me, I don't want it to be
> spending its time arguing over this contentious issue. Bylaws changes

I think this is the single largest problem that SPI has faced over the
past year, and as such I do not believe that it should be off-limits
to the committee.

> should have widespread consensus support, and the drafting should be a
> cooperative, not a combative, process. If contentious issues like
> this one become dragged in, it may well derail other more productive
> discussion.

I agree that widespread support is necessary, and that the drafting
process should be cooperative. However, that doesn't mean that we
must shy away from tackling tough -- or, perhish the thought --
controversial -- issues. If no closure is brought to those problems
now, then when will it be?

Here's what it comes down to. If the Board wants honest
recommendations, then put everything on the table. Let the committee
do its job without unnecessary constraints. Of course, the final
product is subject to the vote of the contributing members anyway.
I see nothing that the board has to lose by this.

-- John

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Goerzen 2003-01-07 17:18:02 Re: [draft] Proposed resolution 2003-01-06.wta.2
Previous Message Branden Robinson / SPI Treasurer 2003-01-07 17:04:26 Re: [draft] Proposed resolution 2003-01-06.wta.2