proposed replacement bylaws

[Joshua D. Drake]

On 07/02/2016 01:59 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Bdale Garbee writes ("proposed replacement bylaws"):
>> At our in-person board meeting earlier this year, the board members
>> present worked with Mishi Choudhary from SFLC on the details, and for
>> some weeks we've had a draft set of bylaws that everyone on the board
>> seems to be comfortable with. I present them here for review and
>> discussion, after which I hope we can have a vote of the contributing
>> membership to adopt these as SPI's bylaws for the future.
>
> Thanks.  It is, in general, admirably clear, and I think with a bit of
> work it will be a jolly good thing.
>
>
> My comments in detail:
>
>
> Art III s4
>
> The mebers' meeting requisition should be 10% of the _Contributing_
> members.
>

Agreed. Also, I am not sure I like that 10% but I am not sure of a 
better solution. If the contributing membership is 100, 10% is too easy. 
If it is 1000, then it is probably reasonable, if it is 10,000 then we 
have a real problem.

> Is the part "... shall constitute presence in person at a meeting"
> really effective in US law ?

Yes although it varies from state to state.

>
> Art III s8
>
> This is very confusing.  Is it the intent to abolish quorum
> requirement for meetings of the members ?

No, it is to state that quorum is who bothers to show up (IIRC). Note 
this is for *members* not Directors.

>
> Art IV s3
>
> This seems to define annually-relected Directors, biannually-reelected
> ones, and triannually-reelected ones.  The wording has perhaps been
> borrowed from a transitional arrangement ?  I think this needs to be
> fixed.

It makes sense to me based on the "initially" and plays into the whole, 
we elect new directors every year but only three of them.

>
> Art IV s5
>
> There should be a power for Contributing members to remove a Director.
>

There is per their ability to call a meeting in section Art 3 s4.


> Art IV s8
>
> Why the long list of communications methods here (and in IV.11) but
> not in Art III s4 ?
>

Good point. I wonder if we just need a general "communications methods".


> Art XI s1
>
> Amending the bylaws should require the consent of the Contributing
> membership, not of the Baord.

I can see valid arguments for both of these.

Sincerely,

JD


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                         +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.