1 |
Ferris McCormick wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> 2. I have looked at the proposed bylaws on our web site and as revised |
4 |
> on 2007-01-22. Except for the change from NM to Delaware, the proposed |
5 |
> revision is closer to what we actually are. That said, let me raise a |
6 |
> few points. |
7 |
> a. The (2007-01-22) proposal is quite detailed. Do we want the |
8 |
> initial bylaws to go into such specificity? This is probably not a big |
9 |
> deal one way or the other, because the bylaws are easily amended. And |
10 |
> NM does not care what is in them as long as they do not conflict with NM |
11 |
> law. |
12 |
Is the plan to move to an umbrella organisation asap? (It was mentioned |
13 |
briefly in the log.) If there's a chance that the Foundation will be |
14 |
continuing, then best to get them right imo, if they require voting on by |
15 |
the membership as Mr Jackson raised. |
16 |
|
17 |
> b. Both sets of bylaws call out both a Board (of Trustees) and |
18 |
> officers of the Foundation chosen by the trustees. At the moment, we |
19 |
> (the trustees) are acting as the officers of the Foundation (because we |
20 |
> chose ourselves if for no other reason). We need to think through how |
21 |
> this works and what structure we want. |
22 |
Officers are people appointed on a professional basis, eg a lawyer, acct or |
23 |
admin, or more general? |
24 |
|
25 |
> c. Trustees must be members of the Foundation, but Officers of the |
26 |
> Foundation need only to be alive (in order to carry out their duties). |
27 |
> Right now that is probably OK because we have neatly resolved the issue |
28 |
> for the moment (see point b). |
29 |
> |
30 |
As you mentioned in the meeting, the membership detail doesn't seem to match |
31 |
the existing practice. |
32 |
|
33 |
> Because everything we do (in NM or anywhere else) keys off the bylaws, I |
34 |
> lean toward a recommendation as follows: After a quick scrub for sanity |
35 |
> and correctness, adapt the 2007-01-22 revision, with an eye to amending |
36 |
> it as experience warrants. And I know Roy has some ideas along these |
37 |
> lines which might belong in the bylaws or not. My inclination is to |
38 |
> pursue his ideas by other means because the bylaws should be rather |
39 |
> brief and general: The bylaws are the rules explaining who we are and |
40 |
> how we work procedurally. Thus, it is appropriate and necessary for the |
41 |
> bylaws to explain who the members are and how we vote, but inappropriate |
42 |
> for them to call out the President's salary. The bylaws are an enabling |
43 |
> document, giving the Trustees authority to act. |
44 |
> |
45 |
I agree they should be minimal. |
46 |
|
47 |
Thanks to all of you for taking this critical work on. I'm sure it'll be |
48 |
more fun in a few months ;p |
49 |
-- |
50 |
gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list |