[Members] minutes of XSF Annual Meeting, 2009-10-06
dave at cridland.net
Wed Oct 7 04:00:47 CDT 2009
On Wed Oct 7 09:01:37 2009, Mickaël Rémond wrote:
> Odd numbers to justify odd decision makes sense ;)
It was the argument proposed by Jack Moffitt and Kevin Smith,
essentially on the assumption that if we simply increased the size of
the Board instantly to 5, and invoked Section 4.7, we wanted to avoid
This plan of action - reducing the size of the board and increasing
it again post-election, was my proposal, but I originally suggested
reducing it to 4, rather than 3. Jack objected to this as it'd
potentially hamstring the Board, and proposed 3. Peter (I think)
suggested deferring the Board size increase until Bylaw changes could
be discussed with the membership - we didn't vote on that latter
decision, but I don't think anyone voiced any objection.
I'd stress that at no point did I, personally, feel any sense in the
room of choosing the number based on who would be eliminated or not.
Without looking, I can't even remember anyone mentioning you, David,
or Nicolas by name.
> Anyway, why did you think you had to decide during the meeting ?
The meeting was quorate, and we voted on whether to take that
decision now, or defer it. It was felt by nearly all those present -
I forget the numbers, and don't see them in minutes - that we should
resolve it there and then.
In fact, we were able to find a solution which effectively allowed
for a potentially interim solution, in the end, so we did, in effect,
defer much of the decision.
> More members should have been able to express their view, no ?
As stated, the meeting was quorate.
> Why did the present members think could change the rule with only a
> part of the members being aware of it ? It seems to change the
> rules on which basis they have expressed their opinion.
Because the meeting was quorate, and therefore the members did
express their opinion. There were very few decisions we were able to
make that fell within the Bylaws, and several - including breaking
the tie with a vote of those present - were decided against on the
basis that the Bylaws did not appear to have any provision for that.
It's a real shame they don't have provisions for that, of course, I'd
readily agree it would have been much simpler.
Please, read the chatroom logs of that meeting, there's much
discussion about what we were and weren't able to do, and much
discussion about whether or not the meeting was quorate.
> We ar not in hurry. Let time do his work.
Right - we have a workable Board, it's been 3 before, as I recall.
It's not a perfect outcome from this election, and I don't think
anyone's claiming it is, but I would note that:
a) The meeting was quorate, and empowered to make any decision
allowed by the Bylaws.
b) This was pretty much the only solution we could find.
The remaining solution was rerunning the election - we effectively
voted against that in the first decision we took, but I personally
feel that would have been clearly ignoring the stated opinion of the
memership to a much greater degree.
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
More information about the Members