Re: Draft bylaws are now available

Josh,

> It certainly would be difficult to get "2/3" of the voting membership to
> agree on anything. That is why it only takes "51%" of the board to do
> it.

Good point. That brings up the other obvious problem which is that it's
relatively easy for the directors to vote themselves in for life.
However, I don't think that this is a realistic problem (who wants to be a
volunteer unpaid director for life?) but I point it out in case someone
else complains about it later.

Ok, so consensus on 2-year terms as proposed? I'm good with it.

> > "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."
>
> That sounds reasonable to me. I'll do some reviewing and see if this
> impacts any other areas of the bylaws.

Yeah, the lawyer should also weigh in on the language. One thing that
leaves open is the possiblity that an "additional appointment" might not
be eligible for re-election but could exist for just 6 months and then get
closed. I think that's a feature and not a bug.

> > Agreed. I'd prefer to have an annual election at one of the
> > postgresqlconference.org series, with some provision for online
> > participation.
>
> Cool! So, the current proposal is that we have elections in the fall,
> and people are 'seated' in March. I like this rhythm, and it gives
> plenty of time for transition.

Hmmm ... 5 months between election and seating seems rather long to me.
That's longer than the US President! In those 5 months, some of the newly
elected board members could drop out.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco