On Monday 09 June 2008 23:43, Selena Deckelmann wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> > "If additional Director positions are added, such Directors will be
> > allocated to those who terms expire at the annual meeting and those whose
> > terms expire at the semi-annual meeting for the purpose of maintaining
> > approximately equal groups of Directors whose terms expire at the annual
> > meeting and the semi-annual meeting of the members."
> > This is the only place electing Directors at the semi-annual meeting are
> > mentioned until the sunset of the organizing directors. The result
> > would that for the first couple years of the organization, all directors
> > will be elected at the annual meeting only until the number is increased.
> > Alternately, it could result in an additional Board member being added
> > with a term of one month. I think this is a good example of something
> > that shouldn't be defined in the bylaws. It really needs to be up to the
> > sitting board to make term decisions of appointees and additional board
> > seats based on several factors.
> I think this is a really good point. Also, I dislike the legalese.
> Some of this problem may be resolved when we alter the terms of the
> Directors and streamline the election process.
Here's my suggestion:
"If additional Director positions are added, the terms of those directors will
be decided by the existing directors at the time of appointment to be any
length equal to or less than a standard single term."
> I don't know that we need the eighteen month term in the bylaws,
Well, the initial terms of directors does need to be set in the bylaws. Where
else would it be?
> One thing - I don't like the idea of having the election at different
> times of year. I think this will be confusing for members. I had
> originally raised an objection about the location, but eventually, I
> think it would be great to have our meetings in different places
> across the country. But for the first few years, I think we need to
> stay in one or two places.
Agreed. I'd prefer to have an annual election at one of the
postgresqlconference.org series, with some provision for online
This also brings up another point: how valuable is it to have the staggered
4/3 6-month elections? This will add a significant amount of effort and
confusion; is the gain in continuity greater than the work required?
Realistically, most directors are going to be re-elected from year to year
anyway, and I'm expecting most directoral positions to run unopposed most
Thoughts? Was there another motivation behind the staggered terms?
PostgreSQL @ Sun
In response to
pgus-general by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2008-06-10 15:34:06|
|Subject: Re: PgUS bylaws|
|Previous:||From: Selena Deckelmann||Date: 2008-06-10 06:43:42|
|Subject: Re: Draft bylaws are now available|