Next step -- Deciding on output
jgoerzen at complete.org
Tue Feb 4 20:59:11 UTC 2003
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 11:09:03AM -0600, Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:24:39PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > 1. A proposal for bylaws amendments, detailing the changes we suggest or
> > perhaps just listing the new document.
> > 2. Rationale for each proposed change. Includes comments from dissenters,
> > if any.
> > 3. Identification of problems. We will want to write this up as part of our
> > own process anyway, so might as well make it "more official."
> I'm not sure how (3) differs from (2). And (1) and (2) would certainly
> be together in the final resolution proposed by this committee. So that
> takes the number of documents down to 1.
Well, yes and no.
The final resolution proposed is just an amendment to the Constitution. It
does not state why it is being amended. Just "strike out clause x and in
its place insert y". This is what people vote on. These documents don't
have a "rationale section" or talk about history. So this one really should
be separate. It probably won't read in a way that would be conducive to
making these comments anyway.
#2 and #3 could go either way. We could combine them, or have them
separate. One of the things we need to do is come up with a list of what's
wrong. That is for our own internal use, but we could publish it as #3.
Then we will go over each of those things, decide whether a bylaws amendment
is appropriate for solving the problem, and decide what amendment to
advance. So I just thought, hey, if we're doing it anyway, might as well
make it a document.
But it would be fine to combine it with #2.
More information about the Spi-bylaws