2008/10/12 Tom Holden <thomas.holden(a)gmail.com>om>:
Again another flu addled quick reply.
Drink plenty of fluids and get well soon!
4) TD made an apparently beautifully simple suggestion
on this, but it
became rapidly rather less simple when we were trying to word it. I don't
think it actually needs to be that complicated at all. We just need to say
that any expulsion by the board can be overturned by an ordinary resolution
of the membership. We don't have to worry about formal appeals processes
etc., it's up to the expelled member to canvas actual members to persuade
them to submit such a resolution. (We may perhaps need a clause saying the
membership must be notified of expulsions, but that's it.)
Actually, I've just been thinking about it and I don't think any
clauses beyond saying it can be overturned are needed. Any member can
require the board to distribute a statement in advance of a meeting
(at least, I seem to recall reading that somewhere) and if the
expelled member can't find any current member willing to exercise that
right then there is no chance of the ordinary resolution passing.
10) On voting: I thought we'd come to a consensus
on using approval voting
for board votes too?
I'm not sure it's been fully discussed, although I don't recall anyone
suggesting an alternative. Approval voting requires the least changes
to the governing documents (in fact, it may even be possible to do it
entirely through rules with the default docs).
21) Perhaps we should again have some "subject to
legal advice" text on
What, we put it in the docs now with a comment that legal advice needs
to be sought before actually using it? That could work - it would
allow us to wait until we can afford a solicitor before doing any
final. On the other hand, even having it in the docs could cause
problems if it's illegal, with or without a requirement to seek legal