On Sun, Jun 07, 2015 at 09:27:41PM +0200, Tavmjong Bah wrote:
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.)
Ah good point, I figured that was the implication there.
Although, here's a thought experiment. The board drops from 7 to 6. Nearly a year later we finally get around to holding an election, with the vote scheduled for the anniversary of the member's departure. But the day before the voting starts another board member drops out, bringing us to 5. The election is held, but since it was set up to only vote on one person, at the end of the election we're still only at 6, and now we're past the one year mark.
Why did you change "All" to "Routine" in section six? What other kinds of decisions are there?
There's a clause I added further down that requires a consensus decision by the committee, for disolving the committee.
There could be other decisions where we'd want to make consensus or 2/3rds votes be required; I don't think the FSA needs to limit us to only majority voting.
Other than this it looks good to me.
Thanks, Bryce, for pushing on this.
Tav
Bryce