| 1 |
On 18-02-08 15:33:02, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
| 2 |
> I think rich0 is spot-on here where if we make it even shorter, it gets |
| 3 |
> even stronger: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Section 4.9. Termination from Membership. |
| 6 |
> Membership may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of trustees. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> No explanation required. Right now, it sounds like the trustees may need to |
| 9 |
> justify that the member is acting contrary to the purpose(s) of the |
| 10 |
> Foundation. When really, no justification should be required (it just opens |
| 11 |
> the door for endless argument, grumpiness, and thus more likely to lead to |
| 12 |
> legal action). At the very least, it should say that the trustees can |
| 13 |
> remove anyone *they feel* (ie. based on *their opinion*, which can't be |
| 14 |
> argued) is acting poorly. That removes the possibility of debate. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Agreed, this is the only improvement I see us making to that specific |
| 18 |
bylaw. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives