[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Active members vs All members

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2006-03-31 14:39:13 CEST

"Garrett Rooney" <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
> Just relaying a concern brought up on IRC by sussman, should section
> III.5.C.3 refer to 2/3 of the active members at the time of the
> initial notice? It seems like requiring 2/3 of all members sets us up
> for situations where it's possible we can't get quorum at all due to
> having more than 1/3 of the total members inactive.

Yes, I think it should refer to "active Members", for the reasons you
say. If for some reason that's not legally kosher (sometimes the law
has strict rules about how Membership can remove members), then we
could make a unanimous vote of the Board be the way to remove a
member. Again, the Board would just be rubber-stamping after a
discussion -- and at least a straw poll -- among the Members.

The SFLC can tell us whether just going with "2/3 of active Members"
will suffice.

For folks who haven't read the bylaws yet: note that "active" is a
technical term, defined in III(5)(B), not some vague hand-wavy concept.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: svn-org-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: svn-org-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 31 19:44:08 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Organization mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.