-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 21 October 2004 01:53 pm, jpinkerton wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Gardner" <jonagard(_at_)amazon(_dot_)com>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Regain control - *was* - When did we lose
control?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 21 October 2004 12:21 pm, jpinkerton wrote:
Well -- it's nice to see that James has managed to overcome his
natural shyness ;-)
It's perhaps a good time for us to start a move towards a slight
"formalisation" of the spf community.
JPinkerton,
The way to go about an organization is to draw up bylaws and have the
bylaws
approved. This is what I suggest: A few of you (like about 6) get
together and read the relevant portions of Robert's Rules. Then you
hold a meeting, and elect a president pro tem and a secretary pro tem.
Then you resolve to form an organization. Then you draw up and ratify
bylaws. (You might want to run them by us first so we get an opinion on
it.) Then you do what the bylaws say - elect a governing council, a
president, or whatever.
I wouldn't worry about incorporation yet as you won't be handling
money.
If
you will, then you could probably do the footwork to get a corporation
with
501(c)(3) status. You'll need to either get a book on that and follow
it
to
the letter, or get a lawyer involved at that point.
That initial group of 6 or so will quickly expand depending on the
rules
for
getting more members. You'll want to add rules for how you hold
elections over the internet, or whether you'll involve the internet at
all.
With this formalized body in place, you'll have a legal entity that
represents a group of people. The charter (if incorporating) and bylaws
(either way) are going to be critical.
- --
Jonathan M. Gardner
Ermmmm -- I said *slight* formalisation ;-)
There is absolutely *no* intention in my mind of drawing up rules,
by-laws, constitutions, incorporations, or anything even remotely like
that. We have enough to do without a whole raft of beaurocratic stuff as
well. We elect three co-chairs who we agree to listen to and to respect
their position. There's going to be *no* empire-building here!
The intention - which I thought was nice and clear from my tone of my
post - is to have three wise men to steer the group and three other wise
men to look after the mail-lists which need a bit of filtering IMHO.
Tech stuff should be politics-free and vice-versa ;-)
And Terry implicitly asked "How commercial-savvy a person....?" Well
we'll take the best one that comes up, won't we ;-) Crumbs, there's
enough company whizz-kids on this list ;-)
This is a KISS solution to our present somewhat anarchic situation.
But see here's the problem: Who gets to vote? How? What do the three
co-chairs have the power to do and not to do? Is there an organization?
What does the organization do? How do people join and leave? These are all
questions that must be answered. The Bylaws is the answer to the question.
When you get in the business of giving someone responsibility and a title,
it is usually best to be specific about what you mean.
Or we can go the "benevolent dictator" route and just let someone take
control by sheer popularity. I believe you don't like this, however.
- --
Jonathan M. Gardner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBeVHWBFeYcclU5Q0RAgaTAJ9bLJAFifp4X9P+YRgMSSlHi+nhvgCfftmo
FrdUoB/V9vnJn3wYnQI5IE8=
=clo9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----