Re: Changes to the GNOME Foundation Bylaws from 2002

I have to say, making changes available as a diff and a rst source file and then forgetting to link them in the official announcement mail, leaving the membership to parse it in order to understand what the changes are is not the most world-class democratic enablement I've seen. However, there doesn't seem to be any major violation of the rules regarding announcing changes as far as I can see. :-)

Now, I do have some comments, and they are as much about things that are concretisised in the new draft as things that maybe should have been.

If more than 5% protest, then we have to vote, sure. But in the bylaws it says either by voice (in other words a general assembly) or by written ballot. As far as I can see, it does not say specifically that electronic voting is allowed in cases like this. Shouldn't that be in the amendments?

The other thing is that the last two amendments are worded ambiguously: one says if at least five per cent protest a vote must be taken, the other says that if at least five per cent don't protest the motion passes. Now, I know what it's meant to say, but if five per cent of users want to push something through, all they have to say is that they don't protest and we have a deadlock enabled by the amendments.

This is not a formal protest yet, just comments. Does anyone have thoughts on this?

/Robert N

On 2 Oct 2012 07:24, "Behdad Esfahbod" <behdad behdad org> wrote:
On 10/02/2012 01:16 AM, Chris Leonard wrote:
> Posting and announcing a diff on bugzilla, waiting about two weeks for
> comment (only a few on the ticket), then asking to move forward.  I am
> not sure I see the procedural issue, what specifically should have
> been done differently?  I'm new here, so I am curious.

It's just missing context.  Would have helped if Tobi's mail included a
reference to his earlier message:

foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]