Identification of problems
jgoerzen at complete.org
Fri Feb 14 20:22:40 UTC 2003
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 01:54:07PM -0600, srivasta at acm.org wrote:
> > However, the bylaws committee should not be usurped for personal
> > preferences,
> Excuse me? What personal preferences? Are you seriously
> accusing me of usurping the committee for my iwn personal agenda?
That was the distinct impression I got from your e-mail. If it is
incorrect, I apologize and am glad to find that out.
> > and to presume that we should advocate overriding motions of the
> > board in a more permanent fashion by putting them in the bylaws
> > does not seem to serve the long-term interests of SPI.
> You do not seem to understand a word of what I said. What
> motions of the board are we over turning? The board voted to create
If we were to put the ban on the e-mail voting veto into the bylaws and a
ban on weekday board meetings, that would be:
Resolution 2001-11-26.iwj.1: Email Voting
Resolution 2002-05-07.wta: Regular meeting schedule
> a by laws change committee not to have spiffier by laws, but to
> ensure the board did not fal l into a state of impotence and
> inactivity again.
That is definately one of our top priorities, agreed.
> > If there is a problem with the motions the board has passed, the
> > right place to fix it is in the board, not in this committee --
> Elucidate. What motions are you referring to?
The same ones as above. The board decided on the meeting schedule and the
e-mail voting procedures. Neither of those is codified in the bylaws.
> And I suggest we create a mechanism in the by laws that
> addresses the issues that lead to the formation of the committee; if
> all we are about is minor tweaks of the current by laws and
> clarifications of membvership rules, then I believe the commmittee
> is largely irrelevant.
No, that is clearly not all that we are about -- as you can see from the
discussion already here. I think there is need for some major overhauls in
certain areas -- but then it is a committee, and if everyone else disagrees,
we may come out with only "tweaks". I don't see anything inherently wrong
> Oh, get off your high horse. I never said that my suggested
> solution was the only one feasible -- or even the workable under the
> current formulation. It was an example offered as what I see as a
> problem in the ways the board currently has to work.
I took "if we do not address the problem of making board effective at
conducting business (like handling the veto rule for email resolutions) we
shall have failed our charter" to mean that your position was that if bylaws
committee did not strike down that rule, we will have failed our charter.
If that was not what you meant, I again apologize, but honestly, it didn't
even occur to me that you meant anything else.
> >> time format is essential. I would go so far as to say if we do not
> >> address the problem of making board effective at conducting business
> >> (like handling the veto rule for email resolutions) we shall have
> >> failed our charter.
> Does the work ``like'' not clue you in to the fact that I am
> not wedded to the example I provide of the problem? Did I even
> m,ention a bloody solution?
I understood it to mean that adopting that particular solution was an
example of solutions you considered mandatory if we are to not have failed
> What exactly _is_ your agenda?
I spelled that out pretty clearly. My agenda is:
* To duly undertake the work mandated in our charter;
* To not use the bylaws committee to gratuitously overrule actions of the
Board in a permenant way;
* To make sure that the recommendations we put forth allow flexilibity to
handle routine business without requiring additional amendments.
I understood your remarks to threaten the last two of those, and by
extension, the first. Your most recent e-mail, combined with part b of your
earlier e-mail (which cited weekday meetings as a failure in the bylaws),
led me to that belief, given that neither weekday meetings nor e-mail voting
is specified in the bylaws.
More information about the Spi-bylaws