[Foundation] Reset: Back to business

Ragavan S ragavans at hotmail.com
Tue Mar 12 15:26:53 CST 2002

I was just about to type something very similar to what Mike has said below. 
I am very much in favor of sticking with our existing by-laws. Also, since 
we do have so many contentious issues being discussed, it is not going to be 
long before we have 3-votes, which may eliminate the inactive members.

In the meantime, I think it would be more worth all our times to do this 
constructively. While it may be very tempting to just scratch everything and 
go back to the drawing board, it is not the best possible approach, in terms 
of time, effort, momentum and a host of other things.

I also am in total agreement with Mike on the issue of the Council. Since 
their first term is about to end soon enough, we can address our Council 
related issues during the time of the next elections.

So, what I am going to suggest is for the Council to come to the general 
membership with a list of proposals, give us members a hard deadline to 
decide/comment/review those proposals, and take it to a vote from there. The 
Council can probably go over the various suggestions that have been offered 
so far in these threads and work that into their list of proposals. I am 
very confident in the Council (and I guess so must be the other members cos 
we all voted them in :-)) to step up and address this issue.

Maybe we need to take a vote on this? ;-)


>As we are working to establish a credible institution, I think it is
>critical in this time when the nature of the Foundation is in question
>that we work within our existing bylaws. So far as I can see, there is
>no provision for a "do-over" in our bylaws.
>If our issue is with inactive members, then our bylaws have a 3-vote
>timeout provision. Let us simply allow that timeout to expire. If and
>when we establish better criteria for the requirements of members, these
>criteria should not be applied ex post facto. So, let us work to amend
>the bylaws with our new requirements; to my knowledge, such an amendment
>requires a simple majority of members voting, with a quorum of 1/3 of
>the general membership. I expect that we should be able to secure this
>many votes for a reasonable proposal.
>As for the Council, obviously I might be thought to have something of a
>conflict of interest, but I would submit that the next regular Council
>election is only a few months away. Hopefully, we will resolve this
>dispute in that time, and the elections can be carried out in light of
>I would also respectfully request that Michael Bauer agree to
>indefinitely table his proposal for the expulsion of members.

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

More information about the Members mailing list