Resolution 1999-08-02.nl: Bylaws Changes

[Nils Lohner]

In message <19990805174607.E26280 at finlandia.infodrom.north.de>, Martin 
Schulze
writes:
>Nils Lohner wrote:
>
>> >> ARTICLE ONE - ORGANIZATION
>> >> ARTICLE TWO - PURPOSE
>> >>   These two articles may not be changed, as they are taken from SPI's 
>> >> Certificate of Incorporation.
>> >
>> >I'd like to remind you of my thoughts from 12/27/98:
>
>> Joey- 
>> 
>> READ THE LINES ABOVE, STATING THAT THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS MAY NOT BE 
>> MODIFIED BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKEN FROM OUR CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND 
>> MAY NOT BE MODIFIED FOR LEGAL REASONS.  I HAVE POSTED THIS COMMENT IN 
>> RESPONSE TO YOUR SECTION TWO COMMENTS SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY.
>
>You don't have to shout!  You should also read what I said "I'd like
>to remind you of my thoughts".  I would have phrased something else
>if I wanted to change something in the first two articles.  Be kind!
>Always.
>

It's just that I've mentioned that time and time again, and am just a little 
frustrated that I need to dig into this issue again.  I've put a lot of time 
and effort into this, and have included the fact that those sections can not 
be changed numerous times in mails to -general regarding the bylaws.  You 
did say in your mail:

>ARTICLE TWO - PURPOSE
...
>
>Thus some paragraphes need to be changed:

so they looked like changes (not just thoughts) to me.  I hope you can 
understand my frustration- the fact that Art. 1, 2 are unchangeable was 
mentioned not once but several times in different mails (and at the top of 
this changes themselves) so I just didn't know how else to point it out.  
After all I didn't want to go to VT100 Flashing codes, and I felt a lot less 
frustrated after typing a few sentences in caps- really! :)


>> As far as the remaining comments are concerned, I'll work through them and 
>> integrate them when I get the chance (in the next few days).  They're good 
>> comments.  I really would have appreciated it though if you could have made 
>> these either during the public discussion period on spi-general, or when I 
>> posted the changes to the board in preparation for the meeting.  I've spent 
>> several weeks working on this, and getting all of these comments (even 
>
>I'm sorry, but important exams made it impossible.  I hoped to be able
>to work on SPI as well but failed.
>

Understandable, but a little frustrating nonetheless.  But the comments are 
very useful, and I think will make important contributions/distinctions in 
the bylaws, so I really don't mind making the changes- this was probably 
just spill-over frustration from above.  I don't get frustrated easily (or 
often), so I hope everyone'll excuse my little blowing-off of steam :)

And apologies for the caps.  I really did feel better afterwards though...

Nils.