[RESULT] Replace the bylaws of Software in the Public Interest

[Philippe Cloutier]

Hi Hilmar,

On 19-04-15 12 h 32, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
> It seems the current language of the section on amending the bylaws in essence require at least (= in the best case, i.e., 100% approving votes) a two thirds quorum for any (substantive, i..e., beyond listing of current officers) changes to the bylaws to pass. Even if that’s not what it states, it’s what the language effectively results in; though the fact that it does not mention putting into effect a quorum makes one wonder whether this was indeed the intended effect of those who originally wrote it.
>
> A two thirds quorum of the full membership is highly unlikely to ever be reached, so there’s the potential here that SPI will be forever locked into the current version of the bylaws. (I suppose the only way out would be to dissolve and re-incorporate?)
>
> Perhaps it would be better to divide the proposed changes into two steps. The first would be to _only_ alter the section on bylaws amendments to establish a more reasonable (i.e., realistically attainable) quorum. This would hopefully constitute a small and focused enough change that those unable to invest the necessary time to fully understand a much more complex set of changes to review it, form an opinion, and vote. Once that’s enacted, the more complex set of changes can be brought up for a vote, and getting that approved then doesn’t force nearly everyone to choose between spending a significant amount of time on really understanding the proposed changes, or casting an uninformed vote, or by abstaining effectively casting a disapproving vote.


The possibility you mention is "interesting", and your suggestion would be a great solution to that problem. However, considering that only 20 approvals were missing out of 216 contributing members, I am quite skeptical that this is needed. I setup a quick poll on http://www.philippecloutier.com/SPI+bylaws to estimate how many contributing members regret not having voted.

It would by the way be great to use "continual consideration" for timeless proposals like this one so there is no need to restart a vote from 0 if only a few votes are missing.


>
>  -hilmar
>
>> On Apr 15, 2019, at 6:18 AM, Henrik Ingo <henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi <mailto:henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 8:48 PM Filipus Klutiero <chealer at gmail.com <mailto:chealer at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> I wondered if I had been negligent, reading the voting communication too fast, but after looking at my mailbox (which might be missing 1 mail), I didn't find any indication that abstention effectively opposed the change. Judging from http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/2019-March/003965.html alone I think many members may have failed to realized the impact of abstaining.
>>>
>>
>> This is true for me as well. I assumed this would pass as a routine
>> decision and since I haven't been so active in SPI recently, I didn't
>> spend the effort to personally familiarize myself with the text of the
>> new bylaws and then vote. I regret to see the effort to renew the
>> bylaws go to waste because of this and it wasn't my intention to
>> effectively vote against approval.
>>
>> henrik
>> -- 
>> henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi <mailto:henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi>
>> +358-40-5697354        skype: henrik.ingo            irc: hingo
>> www.openlife.cc
>>
>> My LinkedIn profile: http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spi-general mailing list
>> Spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org
>> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
>
> -- 
> Hilmar Lapp -:- lappland.io <http://lappland.io>
>
>
>

-- 
Philippe Cloutier
http://www.philippecloutier.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/attachments/20190415/46ad3935/attachment-0001.html>