Thu Jan 27 21:21:30 UTC 2005
David Graham, lacking .signature, lacking gpg key, sitting on downed
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 03:36:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 04:31:29PM -0400, David Graham wrote:
> > > That must have been the best piece of work I've ever written. No
> > > criticism! :)
> > Shall we go ahead and schedule a vote on this part then:
> After discussing David's draft with him on IRC, he mentioned that he was
> uncomfortable with the wording, suggesting that it might be open to
> future misinterpretation. Therefore, I have come up with a rewritten
> wording, which expresses nearly the same thought, and which David says
> he's happy with:
> The presence of not less than two-thirds of the board members shall
> constitute a quorum and shall be necessary to conduct the business of
> this organization, but a lesser number may adjourn the meeting for a
> period of not more than two weeks from the date scheduled by these
> by-laws and the Secretary shall cause a notice of this scheduled meeting
> to be sent to all those members who were not present at the meeting
> originally called. A quorum as hereinbefore set forth shall be required
> at any adjourned meeting.
> Replace with:
> There shall be no quorum requirement for a meeting to take place.
> However, no individual vote taken by the board may be binding without
> the participation of at least half the board members. If two-thirds of
> the board members participate, then a simple majority shall be required
> for passage, unless the item being voted on sets a higher requirement.
> If fewer than two-thirds of the board members participate, then
> unanimous approval of the members present with no abstentions shall be
> The only substantive difference is the addition of the possibility for
> the author of a given resolution to require more than a simple majority
> for passage. This does not weaken the requirements at all, for there is
> no way that a resolution could set a lower requirement (i.e., fewer than
> a simple majority). It only allows the author of a potentially
> controversial resolution to require greater unanimity when appropriate.
> I think this is an improvement rather than a weakening.
> To move the process along a bit, I formally propose the above amendment,
> and I vote "yes" on it. If people want to revise further, I have no
> objection to that, but since all of us (including me) have taken as long
> as we have, I thought I'd do something formal rather than just
> continuing discussion.
> - Jimmy Kaplowitz
> jimmy at debian.org
More information about the Spi-bylaws