Joshua Penix wrote: > Stewart Stremler wrote: > > >I would run so long as I didn't take a seat away from another SIG. > > The one thing I wanted that didn't get done in the bylaw/SIG guidelines > change was to have the board itself reworked so that it has the four > officer positions, and all other "at-large" director chairs actually be > filled by a SIG representative, one-per-SIG. That would be a > requirement of SIG membership, and would give all SIGs board voting > rights. Yes, it would mean that the size of SDCS board varies based on > quantity of SIGs, but I don't think that'd be a bad thing.
I'd specify that each sig fill two Director-at-Large, one being an odd-year seat, and the other being an even-year seat. Otherwise, the remaining rules of tenure exist. (ie: no more tha X years in a particular seat). Then again, perhaps tenure fo Director-at-Large could be waived entirely (kinds like congress or the senate) > Right now we still have the four officers and (five?) at-large chairs, > with SIG representatives required to attend. Eight Director-at-Large seats. There are 13 people on the board, when you include the Immediate Past President. > That's not bad and surely opens up the communication channels (though > I don't think the SIG attendance rule has been enforced), but it still > doesn't give SIGs voting rights. Plus you have to dig up 5 other > people to volunteer. I don't see a problem with the Ever Changing Size of the Board. It could make quorum interesting, though. I also like the idea of not requireing in-person voting. I will not go so far as to *require* GPG or PGP sigs as it is very easy to generate a new key. (Think web-of-trust). Mail-in ballots can also be forged rather easily. Even in-person ballots can be, as you can bring in a lot of non-members and have them vote. Anyway, that's something different. Task at hand: how to handle the impending power vacuum. We are facing the possibility of there being two members on the SDCS board. We could have those two appoint positions, then enact a special election for the appointed seats. We would not be in a vacuum, and we would have an opportunity for democratic elections. Kinda like they did in Iraq. That turned out well, didn't it? -john -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-steer
