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

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Bylaws process/confidence/consensus,



Judyth and all,

  We are in agreement here.  I am however not sure that the
members are.  Perhaps this brief outlined bylaws development
process is in need of a poll of some sort?  I would also point out
that Jefsey did provide a Bylaws list by which those that were
interested in participating could hash out a set of draft bylaws
so that the members could than vote on the draft.

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> At 20:33 -0800 2003/02/28, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >  A pretty good short list here.  However it was in it's
> >entirety, however in different term, several times before...
>
> True ... but the problem may have been that we were presented
> with several full sets of bylaws, each organized rather
> differently, and the process of comparing clauses between
> them was never done ... perhaps because even a natively
> English-speaking fast reader with a background in this kind
> of organization like me spent literally days trying to
> work out the implications of the various versions.
>
> As I said at an earlier stage in this discussion, a
> Constitution and bylaws cannot be written in a vacuum
> and should not be accepted on the strength of a quick scan
> to see if they "look okay" since amending them as soon as
> one has passed them is even more troublesome. It can also
> be a major pain when inconsistencies or sloppy working
> lead to an organization being saddled with processes that
> don't work ... which is pretty much where we're at now.
>
> The usual method is to read them carefully, debate how
> the wording and structure can be improved, get the bugs out
> of one section at a time, and then finally do an overall
> formal "reading" for final amendments before putting the
> whole document to a vote.
>
> I just thought that maybe "somebody" should stick her neck
> out and try to get the discussion going now since we so
> obviously do need to do this work and failed to before.
> After all, if we had done it, we would not be tied up for
> weeks over who is a member and how to hold an election
> now.
>
> HTH,
>
> Judyth
> (awaiting the usual chopper)
>
> ##########################################################
> Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
> Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
> ##########################################################
> "A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
> "Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
> ##########################################################
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de