Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-nfp
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-nfp: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-nfp <gentoo-nfp@g.o>
From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
Subject: Re: Section 3.3. Special Meetings
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:58:29 +0100
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2008.04.28 22:02, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> For the most part this section is fine. One thing that does need to 
> be
> changed is the following
> 
> "when requested in writing by not less than ten percent (10%) of all
> members entitled to vote at the meeting."
> 
> I think we can exclude the last bit, entitled to vote at meetings.
> Members aren't voting at meetings, board members, and officers are.
> Thus
[snip]
> -- 
> William L. Thomson Jr.
> amd64/Java/Trustees
> Gentoo Foundation
> 
> 
William,

That's only a question of mechanisation. We hold the meeting, come to 
the point of a vote, then adjourn for the vote to take place using our 
normal method. At the end of the voting period, the meeting reconvenes.
The members have effectively voted at the meeting.

More generally, a lot of the things in the NM statutes at
http://xrl.us/bjevt are not written around the concept of a virtual 
Foundation such as we want to be. As Ferris has already reminded me, 
its not the letter of the law that counts, its how it has been 
interpreted down the years by the courts. As I'm not a US citizen, my 
knowledge of these things is a lot less than all of the other trustees, 
so I'll go with the flow.

If we want to go away from the interpreted NM law, even if we know what 
it is, I don't think there will be any issues unless someone decides to 
mount a challenge in the courts. Its hard to think of a motive for 
that. In short, I'm reasonably comfortable with mapping the intent of 
the law onto a suitable virtual framework for Gentoo.

As a safeguard for us, should be put such a set of bylaws to a vote of 
the members ?
I know we don't need to but we could seek membership endorsement at the 
next trustee election. I suppose getting reelected is endorsement.

- -- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners
trustees
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkgXYcsACgkQTE4/y7nJvavnbACfQRHp0Bc6CsCPl0rxaCiPQnZv
riMAoPlPJyroJtevDlQC82RZ9rM+Bj8U
=LwEd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-nfp@g.o mailing list


References:
Section 3.3. Special Meetings
-- William L. Thomson Jr.
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-nfp: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Section 3.3. Special Meetings
Next by thread:
Section 3.4. Notice
Previous by date:
Re: Fw: Section 3.3. Special Meetings
Next by date:
Re: Section 3.3. Special Meetings


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-nfp mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.