Resolution 2004-10-16.dbg.1: Committee Framework

[John Goerzen]

On Sunday 17 October 2004 01:22 pm, mbc wrote:
> I would just like to add to this discussion. For an organization like
> SPI which is supposedly acting in the public interest and moving
> forward with such an important thing as the Free Software Movement,
> the structure of the organization is very hierarchical and
> antiquated. I think that a lot could be done to make this
> organization more democratic, more participatory and more
> egalitarian.

Thank you for your input.  I think your goals are very much in line with 
mine, and I agree that we aren't where we should be yet.

Having said that, let me dive into this a little bit.

First of all, my understanding is that the basic notion of a board of 
directors and officers is something that is mandated by law and we 
cannot change, even if we wanted to.  There are also other matters, 
such as how the officers of the corporation are chosen, that are 
defined by our corporate bylaws.  As a matter of law, those bylaws are 
binding upon us.  However, the membership (and only the membership, not 
the board) has the ability to amend the bylaws to make changes within 
the boundaries of the law governing non-profits.  There's a link to our 
bylaws from www.spi-inc.org.

So, there are some things that we can't change, and there are some 
things that we can if we do so with care and the membership approves.

We have been aware of deficiencies in our bylaws for some time.  In 
fact, there is a bylaws committee right now that is looking into those 
issues.  One of the many things they're looking into is a direct 
election of each officer position by the SPI contributing membership.  
The best way to get involved with the bylaws committee is to join the 
spi-bylaws list at lists.spi-inc.org, which I would encourage you to 
do.  Additionally, the 2004 SPI Annual Report contains a summary of the 
activities of the bylaws committee.  This summary would probably be 
helpful to you as you learn about ground that has already been covered.  
That annual report is available at 
http://www.spi-inc.org/~jgoerzen/ar2004/.

On to things we can address more easily...

First, many of us have been working to make SPI more transparent to the 
membership and public.  I am trying to hold as many discussions as we 
can in public places, and our board meetings are already public.  We 
have public mailing lists, and as far as I know, all board members read 
them and most participate in them.  Anybody can post messages to the 
board or any officers.

We do not prohibit members of the public -- whether SPI members or not 
-- from commenting on issues before SPI and advancing ideas for solving 
them.  You are quite correct that we are still "working" on it -- that 
is, we're not there yet.  People like David Graham (SPI secretary) have 
been, in my opinion, making a huge difference by doing research to find 
minutes and resolutions that were never posted on our website, 
documenting our procedures, and maintaining our current status online.  
This effort predates both David and me, too; others have devoted a lot 
of time and energy to organizing our finances, developing voting 
systems, etc.

With regard specifically to committees, I think that they may be more 
egalatarian than they appear on paper.  As far as I can remember (and 
my involvement with SPI does not date back all the way to its 
founding), no member who has asked to join a committee has ever been 
refused.  In fact, the usual way of forming a committee -- and we did 
this with the bylaws committee -- is to ask for volunteers and put them 
on it.

The chair of the committee is probably more what you're thinking of, 
too.  In my experience as chair of the bylaws committee, most of my 
"chair duties" involved keeping us organized (we had a large volume of 
material to process) and writing up our results.  Committee members had 
input on both of those, and wherever possible (and this was almost 
always), unanimous consent was sought.

Now, having said that, I think there is merit to your voting suggestion.  
I think that, in our present situation, where we are likely to have 
more committee openings than volunteers as we discuss possibly forming 
new committees, it will not be very useful.  However, if we get to a 
point where we have more volunteers than openings, then we should 
certainly revisit the point.  I guess what I'm saying is that it 
doesn't pay to design an election when the results of it are known 
before it even starts because there aren't enough candidates to 
actually provide a choice :-)

Thanks again for the input, and please don't hesitate to send more 
thoughts our way again.

-- John