Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 02:37:00AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Taken from the by-laws: > > > "If the board decides not to consider an issue, the membership may > > > vote on the resolution." > > > > > > Now, for a vote, I need a proposal, which brings in: > > > > You already have a proposal to the board, else there would not be a > > resolution on their slate. > > A resolution is fairly distinct for a proposal for a vote, IMO anyway.
Indeed. So we should not apply the seconding requirements for a proposal to a resolution the board has decided not to consider. The board's three choices on each issue under consideration are essentially yes/no/refuse-to-consider in some manner and style, where refuse-to-consider allows the membership to vote. > > The board could vote to reject blocks of DoS-attempt proposals, which > > would mean they don't ever reach the membership. In short, unless the > > board is stupid and refuses to consider the DoS-attempt proposals, > > there is no DoS: just a bit of saving/uploading emails and one extra > > vote each meeting. > > There is a DoS, you're just moving it's target. If it was implemented as > above, I could send 200 emails to the board every month, and they would > need to be voted on. Then the board votes once to reject all 200 email proposals. The board can compress many-to-one, so it's not a very good DoS attack. > > > * resolutions must now be sent at least 48h in advance. > > > - Previously it's been 24h. Before I was secretary, it was none. > > > > 1. it lengthens a no-proposals-allowed period before the meeting > > again. This deadline is new this year and is unwelcome. > > MJ, you suggested 48h yourself above. When? I took 48h from the proposal and rewrote it as a guaranteed service for things arriving 48h ahead and discretionary postponement for things arriving later. I do not support a hard 48h cut-off. > The aim of this is to allow: > a) sufficient time for the membership to comment on a proposal. > b) allow the membership to look at the agenda with enough time to see if > they want to attend a board meeting. That aim would be satisified by issuing the agenda notice earlier. Imposing a deadline on member participation does not meet it. The board can always postpone detailed decisions for more information/discussion, as they have been doing repeatedly on some proposals. (I really don't understand how the domain vote got polluted by a 'should decide it once-and-for-all' meme.) > Of course, if people think that there *shoudn't* be a time limit, I can > remove it, but then I seem to get complaints that there wasn't enough > notice. There should not be a time limit. It is not necessary for issuing notices. Please do not link issuing notices and member participation. > > > * Resolutions must now also be sent to a spi list. > > > > 2. it makes it beneficial to DoS the lists (and the secretary) by > > fraudulently claiming things are proposals, trying to lose the > > real things in the noise. > > I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Could you give an example with > the previous ways of doing things, and the new one? Current way: secretary receives proposals, refers things to lists as appropriate. Only proposals passed to lists by the secretary are necessarily real, which makes them pretty easy to spot. Proposed way: proposers sends proposals to lists, but only those also sent to the secretary are really proposals. The rest are just noise. > > Instead of yet more red tape for members, > > I don't see this as extra red tape. These are new, increasingly-complex policies for things that were fairly informal before. If it ties members up like red tape, it's red tape. [...] > > more notice of meetings (including business) and conducting more > > board discussions in public > > Erm... how can I post notice of meetings with business without a > timelimit on when resolutions should be submitted by? Please see my previous message explaining wider participation items. Please don't link notice periods and participation deadlines. > One of the points (as I pointed out above, but you snipped) of the "send > to a list" idea above is that this ensures that board discussions happen > in public. It encourages resolutions to be posted to a public list, but how does it ensure that board discussions happen in public? > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 04:22:56AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > I suggest changing this to resolutions must be submitted 24 hours in > > advance of the publication of the meeting announcement which must > > occur at least 4 days before the meeting and include the full text of > > the resolutions to be decided at the meeting as well as the schedule > > of the meeting.[1] > > > > Resolutions which do not meet the deadline would be automatically > > defered to the next meeting. [I suppose exceptions could be made for > > emergency resolutions, but those should be few and far between, and > > should probably require a non-regularly scheduled meeting to be called > > anyway.] > > > > This seems sensible to me. > Any comments? The automatic deferral is superior to the dropping-on-the-floor. It is unnecessary to link member participation deadlines with meeting notice periods. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Somerset, England. Work/Laborejo: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ IRC/Jabber/SIP: on request/peteble. _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
