SPI bylaws overhaul: Board Attendence

[Dimitri John Ledkov]

On 16 November 2016 at 19:03, Josh berkus <josh at postgresql.org> wrote:
> Board:
>
> One chronic problem we have had with the SPI Board is failure to attend
> meetings causing board meetings to be recessed due to lack of quorum.
> As such, I would like to see some reference to a Board Attendence Policy
> in the new bylaws, e.g.:
>
> "The Board shall adopt a Board Meeting attendence policy which will
> require sitting board members to attend the majority of Board meetings
> in each year.  Violation of this policy will cause the immediate removal
> of the board member with replacement per Section 7."
>
> Discussion?

I do not believe that lack of quorum has been stalling the progress,
or the day to day work of the SPI.

Also, have we had meetings with no actions? E.g. just vote meeting
minutes & confirm the next meeting date?

A lot of man-hours are spent on treasury activities. Whilst we are
constantly accepting donations. Accounting / crediting donations to
the projects & paying expenses is I think by far most time demanding
thing for the board.

I think I do have it easy, as I am not an officer nor sysadmin.
Nonetheless, over the past month I have spend about 14-16 hours
reviewing / auditing accounting, generating reports (which are now
published), and responding to email queries.

I myself missed the Monday meeting, due to volleyball match. I play in
the London Volleyball League.

Scheduling interactive meetings is a hard task for the board. We are
globally distributed timezone wise. All have more than full-time
engagements. And many of us travel a lot for work & leisure.

The board & officers are volunteers and we are not compensated for our
work. Which I think is a good thing. Conceptually, demanding fixed
hours or expelling board members over meeting attendance feels odd to
me. As it's not holding the meetings that matters, but the outcome of
the work SPi achieves.

We have achieved transitioning to an accounting system which follows
Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) with multiple
directors on the board fully understanding how to keep our accounts up
to date. It took longer than originally anticipated, but it has
increased bus factor and paves the way for sharing the treasury
workload.

If members and/or board think there are people who can dedicate more
time, with more/betters results, than I currently achieve on the
board, I'm happy to step down effective immediately.

On the other hand, I do agree that being an SPI director is not an
honorary role.

The board tries to meet monthly. But imho, if the board manages to
meet and have quorum 8 times a year, it is more than sufficient for
the current churn of operation.

The most limiting thing at the moment for the board, is the disconnect
between how the board operates and what our bylaws say we must do.
However, our current bylaws require 2/3rds of membership of approval
to pass the new ones. Hence the most urgent action for the SPI is the
need from all of our membership to review, help to draft, and complete
the bylaws update.

-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.