1 |
On 1/27/08, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 14:37 -0500, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
3 |
> > > Being as it's already January 27th: |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > Yes, it wasn't expected days would go by with no response. So picking |
6 |
> > any new dates is kinda pointless till we know when they will be |
7 |
> > commented on. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > > Nominations start Jan 30th through Feb 12th, |
10 |
> > > Elections Feb 13th through 27th, new Trustees in march ;) |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > No problem, unless we don't hear from Grant by the 30th. Then we reset |
13 |
> > again and push back/delay some more. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Umm... how about "from now until the 12th" so we can just start and not |
16 |
> wait for Grant. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> No offense, but this whole "we have to wait for $foo to comment" is why |
19 |
> we're very much in this boat in the first place. Do any of you |
20 |
> seriously think that Grant is going to have some sort of objection to |
21 |
> the *dates* in which the election is held? |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Also, votes can be called by the Foundation membership without Trustee |
24 |
> approval. |
25 |
> |
26 |
|
27 |
Look, I just want to have my ducks in a row. The bylaws were not |
28 |
ratified by anyone as far as I can tell; so it could be construed that |
29 |
the foundation has only the trustees as members. Now Grant mentioned: |
30 |
|
31 |
"For practical purposes, we follow the proposed bylaws anyway, except where |
32 |
there is clear precedence contradicting them." |
33 |
|
34 |
Now to me that is not very clear; obviously we are nowhere close to |
35 |
following certain items of the bylaws (they mention for example, that |
36 |
we need a name and address for every member, which we don't have and |
37 |
so on....) |
38 |
|
39 |
There is no point in charging forward if the whole election ends up |
40 |
being illegal and has to be redone. |
41 |
|
42 |
That being said I'm happy to expedite things up to the limits of legal |
43 |
necessity. |
44 |
|
45 |
-Alec |
46 |
|
47 |
> I'm a Foundation member. I say we call this vote, starting nominations |
48 |
> now, ending the 12th, voting from the 13th through the 27th. There, now |
49 |
> it's official. Can we start nominating now? |
50 |
> |
51 |
> *grin* |
52 |
> |
53 |
> > Or any date, even if we don't agree. As most all want the date to come |
54 |
> > from the trustees. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> Quit looking to the trustees for everything. That is *also* how we got |
57 |
> into this mess. We're perfectly capable of doing quite a lot without |
58 |
> the trustees, so long as we are acting on their behalf or acting on the |
59 |
> behalf of the Foundation. As a Foundation member, one's vote counts |
60 |
> exactly the same as a trustee, except in cases where the board must make |
61 |
> a decision, which is generally only done as "proxy" to keep from having |
62 |
> to constantly poll the membership. As opposed to the Council, which is |
63 |
> purely a "representative government" the trustees more directly answer |
64 |
> to the membership. The members are the real voters. The trustees just |
65 |
> work on their behalf to save time. If the trustees do something the |
66 |
> membership doesn't like, the membership can vote and veto it and the |
67 |
> trustees cannot do a thing. They don't have any real special powers, |
68 |
> other than what they're granted. This is essentially the opposite of |
69 |
> the Council, which has *every* power except those that are explicitly |
70 |
> denied. |
71 |
> |
72 |
> Anyway, at this point, we don't need to constantly wait on Grant except |
73 |
> in cases where a signature is required or access to our finances is |
74 |
> required. Remember, it was designed this way on purpose to not impede |
75 |
> progress. |
76 |
> |
77 |
> -- |
78 |
> Chris Gianelloni |
79 |
> Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
80 |
> Games Developer |
81 |
> |
82 |
> |
83 |
-- |
84 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |