proposed replacement bylaws

[Ian Jackson]

Bdale Garbee writes ("Re: proposed replacement bylaws"):
> Susan Spencer <susan.spencer at gmail.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
[year]:"

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

Would you like me to suggest actual wording ?

Ian.