[wplug-plan] Bylaws amendments - Board and VK proposals

[Vance Kochenderfer]

Warning - I combined messages and snipped out major portions to
save everyone's inbox.  If you get lost, see the earlier messages at
<http://www.wplug.org/pipermail/wplug-plan/2006-September/thread.html>.

Patrick Wagstrom <pwagstro at andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> The intent is NOT to act as a gatekeeper.  It's to keep some sanity for
> the board.

OK, this is in line with how I first read the Board's proposal.

> Allowing people to sign up and vote right away could cause
> SERIOUS headaches before a meeting.  What?  Our quorum just went up
> because of new people...How many votes do we need to pass?  etc.  This
> is informally what I've been doing by saying that I don't accept money
> before meetings anyway.

Yeah, this is perfectly sensible.  I don't think any rule in the
bylaws or in Robert's, or any reasonable interpretation thereof,
requires that an application be processed instantly.  And I'm
certainly not in favor of placing such a burden on the officers...

[regarding VK proposal to strike "calendar" from "one calendar year"]
> I think we're covered with the whole "from the reception by the WPLUG
> board...".  If not, I'm fine with changing "one calendar year" to
> "twelve months".

I agree that the best interpretation of the original wording is
that membership goes for one year from the date of joining, but it
just seemed a bit odd to use the term "calendar year" in this
context.  Is there some other kind of year?  :)

[regarding proviso relating to change in number of directors]
> I'm not a big fan of special cases in bylaws.  I think everyone will
> know what we mean.  We've got cluesticks to help.  :-)

I might not have been clear about this: the proviso does *not*
appear in the bylaws - it's just part of the motion enacting the
change to help manage the transition.  In fact, after the election
meeting, the proviso ceases to have any effect at all.  Poof!

[regarding quorum proposals]
> I believe the "voting membership" was there in anticipation of possible
> future membership classes.  For example, we may want to have associate
> members, or student members or something like that.  As WPLUG grows and
> is able to provide more benefits, we'll need to examine these.

Yeah, if we're going to continue to use the current formula I have
no problem with the Board's wording.  It may be worthwhile in my
counterproposal to use "voting membership" as well.  Even though
it's technically redundant, it's probably useful to be in there for
people who don't keep a copy of Robert's under their pillow.  (Stop
giving me that look.)

[regarding VK quorum proposal of 10 or 1/5]
> This creates a problem with then having five directors and only five
> other folks required for a meeting.  That worries me some.  I'll sleep
> on it some.

This was a concern when we drafted the new bylaws.  But when you
think about it, if we can't make quorum to have a membership
meeting, then the Board effectively has control over the group
anyway.  The main thing that makes me comfortable with a lower
quorum is that the bylaws have strict requirements for notifying
the membership of meetings.  If they don't bother to show up,
well, can they really complain about what happens?

I know Bill disagrees, but I just don't think the dues change
alone will have the effect of allowing us to reliably make quorum.

Thanks for plowing through this and all the good comments.

Vance Kochenderfer        |  "Get me out of these ropes and into a
vkochend at nyx.net          |   good belt of Scotch"    -Nick Danger