Comments on USENIX Bylaws
Mike Blake-Knox
mbk at psddevl.UUCP
Fri Dec 23 07:28:21 AEST 1983
Some comments on the proposed set of new by-laws follow:
1) It would be virtually impossible for the members to reject a by-law
amendment proposed by the Board under article 13.2 as it is extremely
unlikely 25% of the USENIX membership would write a letter on any
subject within the time limits imposed by the article. I suggest
"25 percent of the Members" should be changed to "25 Members" which
would force the Board to ask for a ballot rather than allowing a
controversial change to be implemented while opposition was being
formalized.
2) There is no requirement to ever have an Annual meeting although
several of the mechanisms in the by-laws count on having one.
3) There is a requirement that the President (and secretary) know where
the Treasurer's records are stored but no requirement that anyone know
where the Secretary's records are stored. Is there some deep
significance in this - are Secretaries inherently more business-like
than Treasurers?
4) Changing the classes of membership may be very nice but we might be
gambling on what the costs (membership fees) would be.
5) There should be a mechanism for initiating by-law amendments by
petition of (say) 25 members.
6) I have just received my official ballot which was dated 9 Dec but
posted 8 Dec(!). Replies apparently must be *received* by 31 Dec in order
to be counted. This appears to effectively disenfranchise a large
portion of USENIX's membership by requiring an impossibly tight
schedule. This is particularly true at this time of year with Christmas
mail volume being heavy.
I would suggest that the By-law change be rejected and that USENIX follow
a more consultative process in preparing another set.
Mike Blake-Knox
More information about the Comp.org.usenix
mailing list