On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Behdad Esfahbod <[email protected]> wrote: > I think Tobias's message missed out some context, so I'll try to fill in from > what I've been hearing as a foundation member. Note that I'm not on the board > right now and have not been for over two years, and this is my personal > understanding of the situation. > > So, I *think* Tobias is not proposing any significant changes to the bylaws. > He's proposing to change the canonical source of the bylaws to the > ReStructured-Text document that he sent, which includes all the amendments to > the original bylaws and minor modifications to adapt to the new format. See: > > http://people.gnome.org/~tobiasmue/bylaws2012/bylaws-2002-2012.diff > > One comment below: > > On 10/01/2012 10:00 PM, Germán Póo-Caamaño wrote: >> >> I wonder what is the rationale behind the following change: >> >> @@ -458,7 +522,7 @@ >> Election and Term of Office of Directors >> ----------------------------------------- >> >> -1. Each of the directors shall hold office for one (1) year. >> +1. Each of the directors shall hold office for one (1) year, or a >> period of up to two (2) years as determined by the Board and announced >> prior to an election being called. > > Back in the days, Board terms were aligned to calendar years. Ie. a new board > was running January to December. Around 2008ish(?) board decided that it > would be much easier if a new board could take sit at GUADEC instead. So we > wanted to change the term of one board to shift the phase. This was against > the bylaws and needed an amendment. Our lawyers (James Vasile?) recommended > that while changing the bylaws, we change it in a way that would accommodate > similar changes in the future. Hence the wording that you see. This is not > new. This was voted on IIRC and approved, and used, years ago. > > behdad > _______________________________________________ > foundation-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
I was on that board and I can back up Behdad's statement here. The change in wording from 1 year to a range between 1 and 2 years has already been done unchallenged (though someone could have rightfully challenged it at the time) and this change is simply putting into effect wording in our bylaws that would allow it without a vote. It allows the board to be more flexible based on issues we have dealt with in the past but in practice we would rarely go beyond a 1 year term. I believe pursuant to the document any member who can get 10% support can always challenge the extension of the term period before the elections if they wish. Also being that this is a per election decision that can't be amended without a vote during the term, there is little chance for abuse. This seems to be the biggest change in the document along with a couple of places specifically specifying notification via e-mail as well as snail mail for various functions (mostly dealing with removal of members or directors). Since this change still requires snail mail and just adds e-mail I am all for it. I would reject any changes that allowed e-mail exclusively as it has been documented how spam filters have in the past dropped important mails from the foundation to myself. This is not the case of the current wording so I think the changes are good. All in all while I wouldn't characterize the changes as minor I would say that they are changes that incrementally make the document and the policies therein better and I don't see any reason for myself to object to them. -- John (J5) Palmieri _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
