Resolution 1999-08-02.nl: Bylaws Changes
lohner at icd.teradyne.com
Thu Aug 5 15:38:48 UTC 1999
In message <19990805174607.E26280 at finlandia.infodrom.north.de>, Martin
>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:
>> 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!
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...
More information about the Spi-general