Re: Election resolution - substantive issues

From: David Graham <cdlu(at)railfan(dot)ca>
To: Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, spi-board(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Election resolution - substantive issues
Date: 2003-10-14 18:59:33
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.55.0310141455210.8128@baffin
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

> David Graham writes ("Resolution 2003-10-14.iwj.1c"):
> > I have made more changes, and submit this as 2003-10-14.iwj.1b, and would
> > like to withdraw 2003-10-14.iwj.1b:
> There are two main things that David and I seem to disagree on, apart
> from some technical issues.
> Number of board members to be elected now:
> I disagree with Graham's suggestion that we should elect two.
> Firstly, a board of 9 is too small because if we have two resignations
> in the next 3 months (not that unlikely) we'll have to have another
> emergency election etc.

Clause 15 of 2003-10-14.dbg.1 forces the board to address the issue of the
by-laws immediately following the election. New by-laws will better
address this eventuality than forcing the quorum higher than it needs to
be to function.

> Secondly, I think that each elections should be the same size.
> Varying the number of posts available at each election is a dangerous
> thing to do, because it influences how easy it is for particular
> people to be reelected.

I believe each election should be for the number of seats necessary to
carry on the work of the board in the best way possible. In my opinion, 9
members presents the best size to run the board under the current by-laws,
which, membership-willing, will have changed by the time the next election
rolls around.

> Thirdly, I don't think this emergency situation is the right time to
> be (re)addressing the question of the board size.

> Interim reinstatement:
> Graham writes:
> > [The interim reinstatement issue] is addressed by the election
> > itself. I do not believe we need to appoint temporary board
> > members. If we do, I would strongly suggest that a single Advisor be
> > temporarily promoted to the board until the elections are over.
> It seems to me that the board would be failing to do its best to abide
> by the constitution if it continued to function with less than the
> mandated number of board members for any longer than strictly necessar.
> In the interests of continuity it would seem most sensible to have
> back on the board those two longest-serving members who've fallen off.

I believe that if the Board ever needs to instate interim board members,
the most logical and fair choice is the appointment of Board Advisors for
short terms as voting members of the Board.

David "cdlu" Graham
Guelph, Ontario

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ian Jackson 2003-10-14 19:07:06 Re: Election resolution - substantive issues
Previous Message Ian Jackson 2003-10-14 18:58:06 Resolution 2003-10-14.iwj.2, .3, .4, .5 - election