Re: [atlarge-discuss] Bylaws Discussion

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Jefsey,

Your comment << Even Joe did not think of the 2/3 dictatorship at will  >> is 
inappropriate.  Action by any Board based on a two-thirds votes of the Board 
members is known to be a very commonplace practice -- see for reference the 
Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) posted at
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1358.html or do a general search on corporate or 
non-profit bylaws.

The important thing is to establish an operative structure for an 
organization so that fraudulent elections, like the one that you just 
managed/manipulated, never again are permitted to occur.

You have saddled this group of participants with an election process that has 
not withstood scrutiny, and which has seen mounting objections from every 
possible quarter.   The problem now faced by the membership is whether to 
tolerate the mess that you have created or to reject it unilaterally.  

Those that reject this election will undoubtably split off to form their own 
more responsible organization.  It's probably the best thing to do given the 
circumstances that the membership has had to endure over the course of the last 
year.  The remainder will attempt to make the best of a bad situation... but 
I fault no one for pursuing either course of action.  

It's too bad that you chose this method to further fragment the At-Large.


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