Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: reopen nominations

[Matthew Thode]

On 18-04-16 13:10:00, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > Also, I wonder if legal problems wouldn't rather arise from the
> > absence of _reopen_nominations? IIUC, countify will implicitly add any
> > missing candidates to the end of a ballot. So there is no way to vote
> > against a candidate.
> >
>
> I was actually wondering the same thing since every proxy statement
> I've ever gotten allows withholding votes.
>
> However, reading the NM state regs they seem pretty flexible about
> voting for directors in general.  As far as I can tell we could amend
> the bylaws to not even require Trustee elections.  Maybe if we were
> publicly traded there would be more stringent regulations, but that
> will obviously never be an issue for us.
>
> Perhaps somebody has more specific knowledge but as far as I can tell
> the elections process we have is legal.  I can also see no legal
> barrier to adding _reopen_nominations, or to Trustees appointing
> candidates who fell below this threshold (unless we put something to
> the contrary in the bylaws).
>
> http://www.sos.state.nm.us/uploads/files/Corporations/ch53Art8.pdf
> 53-8-15
> 53-8-18
> 53-8-19
>

Thanks for doing some discovery.  I'm aware that the regs are very
flexible for us (even allowing for no voting from the members, not that
I agree with it).  I'm still concerned about what happens if this goes
on for more than one cycle.  Even at one cycle we'd have a period of
time we are down trustees.  Our first responibility is to provide the
infra (servers, money and legal) for gentoo to operate as a distro.
This could harm that responsibility.  If a way could be found to do this
without that hard I'm all for it.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)