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
Ferris McCormick wrote:
> 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
Is the plan to move to an umbrella organisation asap? (It was mentioned
briefly in the log.) If there's a chance that the Foundation will be
continuing, then best to get them right imo, if they require voting on by
the membership as Mr Jackson raised.
> 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.
Officers are people appointed on a professional basis, eg a lawyer, acct or
admin, or more general?
> 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).
As you mentioned in the meeting, the membership detail doesn't seem to match
the existing practice.
> 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 agree they should be minimal.
Thanks to all of you for taking this critical work on. I'm sure it'll be
more fun in a few months ;p
email@example.com mailing list