Identification of problems

John Goerzen jgoerzen at
Fri Feb 14 21:23:02 UTC 2003

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:06:51PM -0600, srivasta at wrote:
>  > 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:
> 	We can put no such thing in the by laws, we can recommend
>  changes to the board. The board then changes the by laws. If the
>  board wants to over turn its own motion, do they not have the right?

Actually, we recommend changes to the contributing members, who then change
the bylaws.  (See article 12)

> 	The board instituted this ctte to fix what is
>  wrong. Obviously things are broken; and by holding what came before
>  as sacrosanct, and diffidently never asking the board to consider
>  changing the way things were done means we sholl accomplish nothing,
>  and we may as well stop now and not waste anyones time.

You misunderstand my position.  I am not advocating holding anything
sacrosanct (save for articles 1 and 2, but that's different).

Rather, I am saying that if the problem is a simple issue with something the
board passed, it is more proper to have the board pass a new resolution
fixing the issue.

I do not have a problem with overriding existing resolutions in the name of
larger reforms.

> 	Artificially limiting ourselves may preclude the most
>  effective solutions from even bering tabled.

That's not what I'm trying to do.  I'm just suggesting that if there is a
problem solely with a board's passed resolution, then the board should pass
a new resolution to fix it.

I do not want us to be constrained by past resolutions either.  Hence I
wrote this:

JG> If there is a problem with the motions the board has passed, the right
JG> place to fix it is in the board, not in this committee -- UNLESS the
JG> problem stems from a root deficiency in the bylaws.

> 	And nothing precludes us from recommending to the board that
>  a changed version be in the by laws; they can, and shall, over ride
>  older motions as they see fit. We should not ever discard working
>  solution cause the board may have passed a motion at some time in
>  the past.


> 	It was an *EXAMPLE*. We shall ahve failed our charter if we
>  leave SPI just as liable to fall into impotent inaction if we do not
>  provide mechanisms to prevent that from happening, and, I suspect,

And with that, I agree.

>  >  * 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;
> 	Can't happen. The by laws ctte merely recommends to the
> 	board, and we are not brain dead. Any attempts shall be voted
> 	down, so this agenda item is a no-op anyway.

It's the membership that does the voting.  But I don't want us to be even
advocating that.

> 	I find such a lack of giving me the benefit of even a
>  modicum of intelligence insulting. Incidentally, I think your second
>  point is not fully thought through: you seem to assume this ctte come
>  s up with a fully formed by laws that go into effect. This is far
>  from the truth: we shall recommend changes, with our rationale;
>  the board has the final say.

No, I do not hold that opinion.  I just find it annoying to write "the
output of the committee, subject to the affirmative vote of the contributing
membership" all the time.  I thought this was commonly-enough understood.

However, the board does NOT have the final say.  It is in the hands of the
membership.  Article 12.

-- John

More information about the Spi-bylaws mailing list