[draft] Proposed resolution 2003-01-06.wta.2

[Ian Jackson]

Branden Robinson / SPI Treasurer writes ("Re: [draft] Proposed resolution 2003-01-06.wta.2"):
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:27:07AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I suggest that it would be better to add some text describing what we
> > want the committee to fix.
>
> Not if we want a standing committee; the existing proposal doesn't
> address that, however.

Eh ?  You mean, you agree that we should tell the committee what we
expect of it ?  Or do you disagree ?

> >  b. In particular, the Committee is directed to consider
...
> >  c. The Board suggests to the Committee that it not suggest changes to
> >   the bylaws which are motivated directly by recent lack of quoracy...
> 
> I second b. but not c.  The committee can suggest whatever it likes.
> Certain people on spi-general have been quite loud about how they feel
> the by-laws shouldn't be amended to address the Board's quorum problem.

I agree with those who says that that the problem with quoracy should
not be fixed by changing the bylaws to (eg) reduce the quorum, or the
like.  It should be fixed by appointing board members who turn up, and
by shortening meetings.  We're working on shortening the meetings by
preparing resolution texts in advance, which I expect will help.

> I think the by-laws committee should be permitted to make its own
> determination as to whether amendments to the by-laws are the proper
> medicine for this problem, and not be steered one way or the other on
> the issue.

I disagree.  I'm worried that the bylaws revision - which is an
important task with serious and long-term implications - will become
derailed by the quoracy problem, which I think is not caused by
problems in the bylaws but by the composition of the board (and thus
indirectly by the board selection process).

Even if the committee ultimately agrees with me, I don't want it to be
spending its time arguing over this contentious issue.  Bylaws changes
should have widespread consensus support, and the drafting should be a
cooperative, not a combative, process.  If contentious issues like
this one become dragged in, it may well derail other more productive
discussion.

> If certain Board members don't want the by-laws amended to address
> meeting quorum problems, I suggest those Board members attend the
> meetings for a change, and thereby attenuate the impetus for making any
> such amendments.

Please stop slinging mud - see my previous message.

Ian.