Hello PLC,
Karen sent out an updated FSA, which includes the changes we voted on, but also updates that come from the newer version of their template. I've read through them and don't see any significant changes other than just making it easier to read. We don't need to vote on the change because, well, everyone has to sign it anyway. But, it would be nice to not end up in a state where someone won't sign it because they don't like change. So this email is to ask if anyone has any blocking changes on the FSA as sent by Karen, and attached below. My schedule is that, if no one has blocking issues, I'll ask the SFC to send out the FSA for signatures on Monday August 1st, 2022. Thanks, Ted
Thanks ted,
I have no problems with the agreement.
Outside of that; "Project mission" is the defined thing our votes are in furtherence. This is a bit like the British consititution, not written down AFAIK.
Section 6 ¶2 alows the SFC to immediately apoint someone to our board. Shhh, don't tell them. 😉️ Because we've had an empty seat for more than a year and this requires us to run an election. Ironically a thing we haven't done because of needing this document done first. 😅️
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Tue, 2022-07-26 at 09:47 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
Hello PLC,
Karen sent out an updated FSA, which includes the changes we voted on, but also updates that come from the newer version of their template. I've read through them and don't see any significant changes other than just making it easier to read.
We don't need to vote on the change because, well, everyone has to sign it anyway. But, it would be nice to not end up in a state where someone won't sign it because they don't like change. So this email is to ask if anyone has any blocking changes on the FSA as sent by Karen, and attached below.
My schedule is that, if no one has blocking issues, I'll ask the SFC to send out the FSA for signatures on Monday August 1st, 2022.
Thanks, Ted
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
Mh, is "must be held within one (1) year of the Committee falling below the maximum number of Members." it the intended meaning ?
I read that thinking it was "below the minimum number" where it would indeed be time-critical, but is the intention to stay at the "maximum number of Members" all the time ? (in that case it's not really a maximum number, it's just "the number")
Le 26/07/2022 à 17:07, doctormo@gmail.com a écrit :
Thanks ted,
I have no problems with the agreement.
Outside of that; "Project mission" is the defined thing our votes are in furtherence. This is a bit like the British consititution, not written down AFAIK.
Section 6 ¶2 alows the SFC to immediately apoint someone to our board. Shhh, don't tell them. 😉️ Because we've had an empty seat for more than a year and this requires us to run an election. Ironically a thing we haven't done because of needing this document done first. 😅️
Best Regards, Martin Owens
On Tue, 2022-07-26 at 09:47 -0500, Ted Gould wrote:
Hello PLC,
Karen sent out an updated FSA, which includes the changes we voted on, but also updates that come from the newer version of their template. I've read through them and don't see any significant changes other than just making it easier to read.
We don't need to vote on the change because, well, everyone has to sign it anyway. But, it would be nice to not end up in a state where someone won't sign it because they don't like change. So this email is to ask if anyone has any blocking changes on the FSA as sent by Karen, and attached below.
My schedule is that, if no one has blocking issues, I'll ask the SFC to send out the FSA for signatures on Monday August 1st, 2022.
Thanks, Ted
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
Inkscape Board of Directors mailing list -- inkscape-board@lists.inkscape.org To unsubscribe send an email to inkscape-board-leave@lists.inkscape.org
On Jul 26 2022, at 10:17 am, Marc Jeanmougin marc@jeanmougin.fr wrote:
Mh, is "must be held within one (1) year of the Committee falling below the maximum number of Members." it the intended meaning ?
I read that thinking it was "below the minimum number" where it would indeed be time-critical, but is the intention to stay at the "maximum number of Members" all the time ? (in that case it's not really a maximum number, it's just "the number")
So, yeah, I looked at that. I think that it is the maximum number because practically the committee could run at less than that for a year. So in those cases it is valid committee, but still not at that number. Where if it then goes below minimum, then there are actions to be taken. But it seems like practically, most of the time, it would be "the number" unless we had a lot of churn (which we haven't seen in the past). Ted
participants (3)
-
doctormo＠gmail.com -
Marc Jeanmougin -
Ted Gould