-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
> 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.
> William L. Thomson Jr.
> Gentoo Foundation
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.
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list