Identification of problems

srivasta at srivasta at
Sat Feb 15 05:26:41 UTC 2003

>>>>> In article <20030214212302.GA11706 at>, John
>>>>> Goerzen <jgoerzen at> writes: 

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

	What exactly does article 12 have to do with this committee?
 Sure, the members may vote on whatever they want to. But this
 committee was commissioned by the board, and set with a specific
 charter -- but not without over sight. I view my inclusion as the
 boards representative as part of the over sight -- te other part is
 a thorough review of the recommendation of the committee.

	The board set this ctte in place to investigate the potential
 benefits of changes in by laws, with one of the major goals being
 changing the by laws to allow the board to operate more
 efficiently. There was never an intention to create a committee at
 large, which would bypass the review process of the board. 

 > 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.

	The board has created this committee to investigate and see
 if a solution can be devised, If we discover that there is some
 resolution the board may pass that fixes everything, then no doubt
 the resolution shall be passed.

 > 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.

	We are here to discover how to fix the problems. If indeed a
 resolution of the board is found to be the rot cause, we can say so.

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

	So you want the board to appoint another cvommittee to study
 the problem? Why? We already are looking into the issue; if we deem
 that the board can solve everything by fixing a resolution, for gods
 sake let us say so, and not keep mum because it goes beyond some
 bureaucratic determination that it is not our place to point out
 that kind of solution. 

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

	And ultimately the membership sjhall, when the board presents
 the final set of by-laws. This is an advisory committee. Ket us not
 go around bypassng the board that created us. 

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

	The board shall present a final draft for the membership to
 vote on, and then they have the final say. In the meanwhile, let us
 not try to escape board oversight.

Hmmm ... a PINHEAD, during an EARTHQUAKE, encounters an ALL-MIDGET
FIDDLE ORCHESTRA ... ha ... ha ...
Manoj Srivastava     <srivasta at>    <>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

More information about the Spi-bylaws mailing list