On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 15:30 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
I would encourage everyone to do one final review of the document (I posted it in this thread in reply to Tav the other day). We'll need to formally sign the document soon, and if anyone has any other concerns with any language I'd like to get that dealt with before we get to the signing stage.
Once you've reviewed the copy I sent, if you have no further concerns, I would appreciate if you would give me an informal thumbs-up.
You made the one change I was concerned about (the mandatory elections every two years).
There is talk of a maximum and of a minimum number and that there must be an election within a year of falling below the maximum number but it doesn't explicitly state that the election should be to restore the board to seven members. (The use of 'vacant seat' hints at this but it could be more clearly stated.)
Why did you change "All" to "Routine" in section six? What other kinds of decisions are there?
Other than this it looks good to me.
Thanks, Bryce, for pushing on this.
Tav