proposed replacement bylaws
ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Wed Jul 6 10:23:50 UTC 2016
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: proposed replacement bylaws"):
> Agreed. Also, I am not sure I like that 10% but I am not sure of a
> better solution. If the contributing membership is 100, 10% is too easy.
> If it is 1000, then it is probably reasonable, if it is 10,000 then we
> have a real problem.
Debian uses a square root for this. I copied that from the rules of
the (now sadly gone) Cambridge University Computer Society...
> > This is very confusing. Is it the intent to abolish quorum
> > requirement for meetings of the members ?
> No, it is to state that quorum is who bothers to show up (IIRC). Note
> this is for *members* not Directors.
I don't see a difference between "abolish quorum requirement" and
defining "who bothers to show up" as a quorum, so whatever. The
wording could perhaps be clearer.
> > Art IV s5
> > There should be a power for Contributing members to remove a Director.
> There is per their ability to call a meeting in section Art 3 s4.
There is no power for the resolution of such a meeting to exercise the
powers of the Directors (and probably there shouldn't be).
More information about the Spi-general