[Foundation-l] bylaws (second call)

[Ray Saintonge]

Anthere wrote:

>Anthony wrote:
>  
>
>>On 8/13/06, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>This text, amongst other things, removes the notion of membership. If
>>>you do not comment, nor propose another way to handle membership, the
>>>Foundation will not legally have members. You will not be Foundation
>>>members.
>>>      
>>>
>>How long do we have to comment?  I'm thinking about writing my own
>>proposal for a membership section, but this will take some time.
>>    
>>
>I hope new bylaws will be agreed upon 3 months ago.
>
>------
>Hmmmm
>According to our standards of voting speed, my best hope would be that 
>Angela participates to this vote (before 6 weeks).
>
>My second best hope if not would be that new bylaws are voted during the 
>board retreat in october.
>
>If not, I do not expect they will be voted before the end of my own 
>mandate (next june)... unless we can pass a resolution saying that "no 
>vote within 3 months means approval" (but I am not sure this is legal).
>
It may be legal, but it just allows too much to get through unnoticed.  
Very unwise.

>in short, the sooner the better.
>
Why the rush?  Let's get the ideas right first before we harden them 
into legal language.  I understand that it's difficult to get meaningful 
participation on this kind of thing.  People tend to run away from 
meetings when they see that by-laws are on the agenda.  As flawed as the 
existing by-laws may be there is not much damage done by keeping them in 
place for a little longer while we try to get things right. 

My previous analysis of what I view as the most important points was 
done with civility despite the corporatist tone of the document. 

Ec