List Archive: gentoo-nfp
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Ferris McCormick wrote:
| This is a brief update for the status meeting this Sunday.
| 1. I have not yet heard back from Mr. Chew in New Mexico on our
| reinstatement. He indicated that it would take a few days, so this is
| not a concern. I do not know (and he did not know) just what
| information he needs from the state, so NM government agencies might be
| involved. I'll call him at the end of the week if we haven't heard
No worries, once we know then we know what we need to do and how much it
will be. I figure ~1 hour to figure our our status and then probably
another ~1 hour for filing is what we'll be billed for at the moment.
| 2. I have looked at the proposed bylaws on our web site and as revised
| on 2007-01-22. Except for the change from NM to Delaware, the proposed
| revision is closer to what we actually are. That said, let me raise a
| few points.
| a. The (2007-01-22) proposal is quite detailed. Do we want the
| initial bylaws to go into such specificity? This is probably not a big
| deal one way or the other, because the bylaws are easily amended. And
| NM does not care what is in them as long as they do not conflict with NM
| b. Both sets of bylaws call out both a Board (of Trustees) and
| officers of the Foundation chosen by the trustees. At the moment, we
| (the trustees) are acting as the officers of the Foundation (because we
| chose ourselves if for no other reason). We need to think through how
| this works and what structure we want.
| c. Trustees must be members of the Foundation, but Officers of the
| Foundation need only to be alive (in order to carry out their duties).
| Right now that is probably OK because we have neatly resolved the issue
| for the moment (see point b).
| Because everything we do (in NM or anywhere else) keys off the bylaws, I
| lean toward a recommendation as follows: After a quick scrub for sanity
| and correctness, adapt the 2007-01-22 revision, with an eye to amending
| it as experience warrants. And I know Roy has some ideas along these
| lines which might belong in the bylaws or not. My inclination is to
| pursue his ideas by other means because the bylaws should be rather
| brief and general: The bylaws are the rules explaining who we are and
| how we work procedurally. Thus, it is appropriate and necessary for the
| bylaws to explain who the members are and how we vote, but inappropriate
| for them to call out the President's salary. The bylaws are an enabling
| document, giving the Trustees authority to act.
I'd like to be around for any proposed changes..and I still need to
review the bylaws, but I don't believe we can unilaterally change the
bylaws per their inherent nature and statements of the members being
able to vote on such changes I believe. Don't quote me as I've not read
them in a while and really do need to reread them in detail. If I recall
its not a "salary" but a stipend. Which is entirely different in the
legal sense of the matter.
| I hope to have a bit more on this later this week, but I am sending this
| out a bit early because I know Josh is travelling this weekend. and I
| wish to give him a chance to respond.
Thanks for the list.
As well I did a rough grep in ldap for user join date but not
associating with a retiring date as we don't have a date for being
retired. All members prior to 3/26/07 were included in the list I have
in my home directory on dev. It totals to 506 members roughly, now note
that this doesn't count for people who were here less then a year but it
should be fairly easy to figure out who was not here for the full time
or we could just do a clean slate and say everyone on that list was....
Of those 506 members, 379 are marked as retired in perl_ldap as well.
That means that we have 127 developers who are active and part of the
foundation. I can form a draft letter later to all members to collect a
bare minimum of information we need from each one as many of the retired
members no longer have forwards to other accounts making tracking of
some down harder. If the requirement is simply a name and email the vast
majority will be easy...however for those long retired it might be
looking at if they are to still be considered members of the foundation
as the bylaws have for the different levels of members.
Just another item that we need to get in order as well...
Its late and I must pack so have a good week all and I look forward to
hearing what happened in the meeting.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list