proposed replacement bylaws
ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Mon Jul 4 10:20:41 UTC 2016
Keith Packard writes ("Re: proposed replacement bylaws"):
> Ian Jackson <ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > We have here a set of bylaws that subjects the board members to
> > election, and (if you agree with me above) to recall by the
> > membership. But with the current draft the supremacy of the
> > membership can be simply anulled at will by the board, simply by
> > amending the bylaws.
> The mechanism for recovering from this would be a lawsuit filed by the
> membership. It's an insane plan, but would only happen if the board went
> truly insane itself. I believe the threat of such an action will be
> sufficient to prevent it from ever happening.
The membership would lose the lawsuit because the board's actions
would have been lawful.
> It seems like we can either have a fairly weak vote of the membership or
> a strong vote of the board. The strong requirements in the proposed
> bylaws require near consensus among the board, which should prevent even
> a well organized group of board members from effecting any unwarranted
I'm firmly of the view that the board should not be permitted to
change the bylaws against the opposition of the membership.
More information about the Spi-general