[Members] OFFICIAL MEETING NOTICE: board and council elections

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Sep 16 09:47:47 CDT 2009


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 9/16/09 2:40 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>> The board will be working on an annual report, to which the Council is
>> encouraged to contribute a technical update. The model is this:
>> http://xmpp.org/xsf/docs/annual-report-2007.shtml
>>
>> I've started a page for it here:
>> http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Annual_Report_2009
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>>> I'd be interested in knowing if there are any Board members that don't
>>> turn up to meetings (with or without apologies) especially more than
>>> once in the term, for being sure about my votes.
>> Yes, that would be helpful information. Unfortunately, I have been
>> utterly remiss about writing up minutes from the Board meetings.
> 
> I'd like to have minutes (I'd like Members to be able to join Board
> meetings, in fact, or at least see the room logs), 

I would prefer open Board meetings as well. Feel free to ask the current
candidates about their position on that matter. Or we can hold monthly
member meetings and have certain topics on which only the Board can vote
(similar in some ways to Council meetings now).

> but for the moment
> I'd settle for just knowing if there's anyone who's not pulling their
> weight - it's hard to know if your votes are sensible without knowing
> anything about Board :)

In my experience all of the current Board members have regularly
attended the meetings. However, that is purely anecdotal. Minutes would
help clarify the matter.

>> At the Council's request, in 2003 the Board previously limited the
>> number of Council members to 5. This was done without changing the
>> Bylaws. Whether that change needed to be done in the Bylaws is another
>> matter. This was done to reduce confusion about the election process. I
>> think it would be good to make this change in the Bylaws, since last
>> year's election was slightly confusing in regard to the number of Board
>> members. I would be happy to propose an item for voting by the
>> membership but it is too late to do that in time for this year's election.
> 
> Yes, I think it probably is :)
> 
>> I too would prefer that the Board and the Council shall be voted on in
>> the same way.
> 
> Great :)
> 
>>> Checking the
>>> list archives on this, although there seemed to be general agreement
>>> for this change, there was never the required Membership vote.
>> Again, it is not 100% clear to me that the membership absolutely needed
>> to vote on affirming the custom in place from the beginning.
> 
> My very much not a lawyer opinion is that it should, as we're
> operating at odds with the Bylaws at the moment.
> 
>> However, I agreet that it would be good to align the Bylaws with
>> reality. Someone will need to propose appropriate items for voting by
>> the membership, then either call a special meeting of the membership or
>> fold those items into the next regular meeting (for approving new
>> applicants), which I expect would happen in October or early November.
> 
> My reading of the Bylaws on changing the Bylaws is that the Board
> should make the changes it proposes, and then call for a membership
> vote to accept them (or roll it up, as you suggest), but the
> Membership proposing would probably do too :)

Either way is fine. Given that the Board is just a number of
individuals, it's just as easy for a member to take the initiative. I
meant to do that after last year's (confusing) election but it slipped
from my radar screen. My apologies for that.

Peter

- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkqw+pMACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxkxgCg1aHfk/S2bNkKexj8glAOb6dz
68EAoKGkyhs0HgZ6C4uJQWeHo5TI4Lww
=ic93
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the Members mailing list