Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Steve Long <slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Status meeting --- 30 March
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:09:56
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 > law.
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 -- gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: Status meeting --- 30 March Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>