On 1/27/08, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-01-27 at 14:37 -0500, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > > Being as it's already January 27th:
> >
> > Yes, it wasn't expected days would go by with no response. So picking
> > any new dates is kinda pointless till we know when they will be
> > commented on.
> >
> > > Nominations start Jan 30th through Feb 12th,
> > > Elections Feb 13th through 27th, new Trustees in march ;)
> >
> > No problem, unless we don't hear from Grant by the 30th. Then we reset
> > again and push back/delay some more.
>
> Umm... how about "from now until the 12th" so we can just start and not
> wait for Grant.
>
> No offense, but this whole "we have to wait for $foo to comment" is why
> we're very much in this boat in the first place.  Do any of you
> seriously think that Grant is going to have some sort of objection to
> the *dates* in which the election is held?
>
> Also, votes can be called by the Foundation membership without Trustee
> approval.
>

Look,  I just want to have my ducks in a row.  The bylaws were not
ratified by anyone as far as I can tell; so it could be construed that
the foundation has only the trustees as members.  Now Grant mentioned:

"For practical purposes, we follow the proposed bylaws anyway, except where
there is clear precedence contradicting them."

Now to me that is not very clear; obviously we are nowhere close to
following certain items of the bylaws (they mention for example, that
we need a name and address for every member, which we don't have and
so on....)

There is no point in charging forward if the whole election ends up
being illegal and has to be redone.

That being said I'm happy to expedite things up to the limits of legal
necessity.

-Alec

> I'm a Foundation member.  I say we call this vote, starting nominations
> now, ending the 12th, voting from the 13th through the 27th.  There, now
> it's official.  Can we start nominating now?
>
> *grin*
>
> > Or any date, even if we don't agree. As most all want the date to come
> > from the trustees.
>
> Quit looking to the trustees for everything.  That is *also* how we got
> into this mess.  We're perfectly capable of doing quite a lot without
> the trustees, so long as we are acting on their behalf or acting on the
> behalf of the Foundation.  As a Foundation member, one's vote counts
> exactly the same as a trustee, except in cases where the board must make
> a decision, which is generally only done as "proxy" to keep from having
> to constantly poll the membership.  As opposed to the Council, which is
> purely a "representative government" the trustees more directly answer
> to the membership.  The members are the real voters.  The trustees just
> work on their behalf to save time.  If the trustees do something the
> membership doesn't like, the membership can vote and veto it and the
> trustees cannot do a thing.  They don't have any real special powers,
> other than what they're granted.  This is essentially the opposite of
> the Council, which has *every* power except those that are explicitly
> denied.
>
> Anyway, at this point, we don't need to constantly wait on Grant except
> in cases where a signature is required or access to our finances is
> required.  Remember, it was designed this way on purpose to not impede
> progress.
>
> --
> Chris Gianelloni
> Release Engineering Strategic Lead
> Games Developer
>
>
-- 
gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list