Resolution 2003-10-14.iwj.1c

[Ian Jackson]

David Graham writes ("Resolution 2003-10-14.iwj.1c"):
> I have made more changes, and submit this as 2003-10-14.iwj.1b, and would
> like to withdraw 2003-10-14.iwj.1b:

Some of your changes are good; I disagree with others.  This mail
discusses essentially technical issues.

> Clauses 4 and 11 have 'three' replaced with 'two'. It is my strong opinion
> that a 9 member board is more appropriate to SPI's ability to conduct
> business due to the quorum being 6/9 instead of 7/10.

I disagree.  I'll explain in a separate mail.

> Clauses 5, 10, and 11 takes the onus off the secretary for handling the
> election and asks that the results be automatically announced at the end
> of voting.

I agree with your change to clause 5 (which says that the secretary.

Your change to clause 10 assumes that the secretary can and wishes to
make publication of the results automatic.  I think that such
automatic publication is a very bad idea.  There has to be a final
chance for the secretary to review how the vote went, look at the
voting machinery logs, etc. etc., before the results are published.

Otherwise any malfunction could lead to an erroneous announcement and
then shit will really hit the fan !

(I used to be a USENET votetaker, so I know what I'm talking about
here.  Automatic announcement of results from elections is a bad
idea.)

Your change to clause 11 is consequential.

> Clause 6 makes this resolution the call for the election, not the actions
> of any single person.

Your change to clause 6 is definitely wrong IMO.  It uses the word
`must' in a way that doesn't say what happens if the stipulation is
violated.  Also, the subtle change to the punctuation from `as soon as
possible but no later ...' to `as soon as possible, no later' turns
the `no later' clause from an overriding clause to one that stands
facially peer but which has a contradictory meaning.

> Clause 13 now states that membership is closed until the end of elections.

Is this really necessary ?

> Clause 15 is more generally worded, and no longer needs to come under a
> separate header.

Without the interim appointment there is no need for the explicit
statement that the interim appointees may stand as candidates.
_With_ the interim appointment, 

> Clause 20 forces the issue of the by-laws amendments, implict in that is
> that by next summer we will have our first constitutionally mandated
> election, assuming the by-laws are passed.

Your clause 20 is a simple endorsement of the output of the bylaws
committee - it says that the board will do what the bylaws committee
recommended.  This is certainly not the right place to make this
decison !

> Ideally the by-law amendments will be passed PRIOR to an election, but I
> don't see that happening and as such I would like to ask that the by-laws
> be at the top of the agenda until it is resolved following the election.

I think you're misunderstanding the power of a board resolution.  A
board resolution can't _make_ the board members pay attention if
they're not doing so.  The membership can do that by voting in more
dynamic board members.

Ian.