[Foundation] Reset: Back to business

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Mar 12 16:39:33 CST 2002


The Council meeting will focus on Council issues. It's possible that other
important or interesting things will come out of that, but the purpose is
to focus on addressing items specifically related to the Council. If I
implied anything more than that, I apologize.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
email+jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
weblog: http://www.saint-andre.com/blog/

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Michael Bauer wrote:

> 
> This wasn't how things were supposed to work.  The Council is an advisory 
> body primarily delegated to overseeing the JIGs for technical purposes.  
> The Members are directly responsible for Foundation.  Heg's putting 
> together a proposal for language on Membership already based on discussion 
> on the Members list.  I submit it will be very difficult for the 
> Council (or anyone else for that matter) to come up with a viable 
> trademark proposal.  In fact, I wouldn't recommend the Council do this at 
> all.  I think this should come up from the Membership itself.  If the 
> Council has some other ideas for proposals, fine, but the onus is upon the 
> Membership to govern itself.
> 
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
> > We will be holding a meeting of the Council this Friday if we can get a
> > quorum. Dizzy and I will be putting together an agenda for that meeting
> > and the meeting will be logged (I think). We are actively working on
> > having the Council "step up", as you say.
> > 
> > Peter
> > 
> > --
> > Peter Saint-Andre
> > email+jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
> > weblog: http://www.saint-andre.com/blog/
> > 
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Ragavan S wrote:
> > 
> > > 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? ;-)
> > > 
> > > Ragavan
> > > 
> > > >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
> > > >them.
> > > >
> > > >I would also respectfully request that Michael Bauer agree to
> > > >indefinitely table his proposal for the expulsion of members.
> > > >
> > > >-Mike
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Members mailing list
> > > Members at jabber.org
> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > 
> 
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Bauer        me at michaelbauer.com       http://www.michaelbauer.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> 




More information about the Members mailing list