On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 01:13:22PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: Yes, can you draft up replacement text for the 'Representation of the Project in the Conservancy' section? I'm gathering that we need the bit about the "signatories shall initially comprise..." and the text about removing and adding members to cover the bug you mentioned? That seems fairly uncontroversial and basically matches how I think we all assume the board is supposed to work. I notice there is text about handling the case where a committee member (or the committee in large) becomes unreachable. Something like that sounds worthwhile to add, although we probably should vote on that. I've already called for a vote on giving 10% of revenues to the Conservancy. One question I have is that the text says "earmarked revenue". What does "earmarked" mean in this context? Aside from the above, are there any other significant points in the new template we should consider, particularly ones that would require voting on? I see some changes are just shuffling sections around and refactoring verbage. I think once the above points have all gotten voted on, a re-drafting of the FSA would be in order, which can include reformatting and textual refactoring as you see fit. Then probably one more vote on the final product. I suppose this redrafting will require everyone re-signing it? Bryce