After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 683980 - bylaws change 2012
bylaws change 2012
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: website
Classification: Infrastructure
Component: foundation.gnome.org
current
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Foundation website maintainer(s)
Foundation website maintainer(s)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2012-09-13 17:54 UTC by Tobias Mueller
Modified: 2012-11-07 13:42 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
changes (25.66 KB, patch)
2012-09-13 17:54 UTC, Tobias Mueller
rejected Details | Review
replaced "relevant reason" (25.70 KB, patch)
2012-09-23 21:10 UTC, Tobias Mueller
none Details | Review

Description Tobias Mueller 2012-09-13 17:54:24 UTC
bylaws change 2012
Comment 1 Tobias Mueller 2012-09-13 17:54:50 UTC
Created attachment 224252 [details] [review]
changes
Comment 2 Bastien Nocera 2012-09-18 17:34:28 UTC
Review of attachment 224252 [details] [review]:

I don't like the replacement of "therefor" by "such <article>", as they don't clarify the sentences most of the time, and "such a" doesn't have the same sense.

::: bylaws-2002.rst
@@ +169,3 @@
 shall be as provided by the Board, subject to the terms of the Bylaws, as amended from time to time.
 The Board may thereby confer some or all of the rights of the members upon any person or persons.
+If such person or persons do not have the right to vote for either:

I really don't understand that sentence. Should it be attached to the previous one, for example:
"
The Board may thereby confer some or all of the rights of the members upon any person or persons as long as such person or persons do not have the right to vote for either:[...]
"

@@ +236,3 @@
+        a)      A notice shall be sent by electronic mail and prepaid, first-class, certified or registered mail to the most recent
+                address of the member, if known to the Corporation, setting forth the removal or
+                suspension and the relevant reason. Such notice shall be sent at least fifteen (15) days

I would change:
"and the relevant reason"
to
"and the reason for that removal or suspension".
Yes it repeats itself, but it's a legal document, let's make it clear.

@@ +246,3 @@
                 proposed removal or suspension shall state that such member is entitled, upon request, to
                 such hearing, shall state that a date, time and place of hearing will be established upon receipt
+                of such a request, and shall state, that in the absence of such request, the effective date of

"such a request" means, "a request of that type", not "that particular request".

I don't think the presence of therefore is a problem reading this document tbh.

@@ +566,3 @@
                 shall be held by the Board. The notice to the Director of his or her proposed removal shall
                 state that such member is entitled, upon request, to such hearing, shall state that a date, time
+                and place of hearing will be established upon receipt of such a request, and shall state, that

"such a request" again.

@@ +639,3 @@
                 Director by one of the following methods:
                 
+                i. by personal delivery;

Why remove the written notice? Handing them the notice at a face-to-face meeting should be valid as well.

@@ +903,3 @@
                 shall be held by the Board. The notice to the Officer of his or her proposed removal shall
                 state that such member is entitled, upon request, to such hearing, shall state that a date, time
+                and place of hearing will be established upon receipt of such a request, and shall state, that

Ditto.

@@ +1328,1 @@
+#.      In the event that five percent or more of the members do not object to the proposal, then

This isn't very clear to me. If I twist this around, I could have "5 percent do not object", "5 percent object", "90 percent didn't register an opinion".
Comment 3 Tobias Mueller 2012-09-23 21:07:58 UTC
Review of attachment 224252 [details] [review]:

::: bylaws-2002.rst
@@ +169,3 @@
 shall be as provided by the Board, subject to the terms of the Bylaws, as amended from time to time.
 The Board may thereby confer some or all of the rights of the members upon any person or persons.
+If such person or persons do not have the right to vote for either:

I read it this way: New membership classes can be established. Rights of members can thus be transferred to new classes or persons. These persons, however, shall not be members in the sense of that Californian law.

So I tried to make it more obvious by splitting the paragraph off.

@@ +236,3 @@
+        a)      A notice shall be sent by electronic mail and prepaid, first-class, certified or registered mail to the most recent
+                address of the member, if known to the Corporation, setting forth the removal or
+                suspension and the relevant reason. Such notice shall be sent at least fifteen (15) days

Good catch.

@@ +246,3 @@
                 proposed removal or suspension shall state that such member is entitled, upon request, to
                 such hearing, shall state that a date, time and place of hearing will be established upon receipt
+                of such a request, and shall state, that in the absence of such request, the effective date of

Hm. I see your point. But that's the language in the document. I.e. "such member... such hearing... such request".

@@ +639,3 @@
                 Director by one of the following methods:
                 
+                i. by personal delivery;

Because it is considered to be redundant with the following options.

@@ +1328,1 @@
+#.      In the event that five percent or more of the members do not object to the proposal, then

Hm. I understand. It is meant to be the two branches, really. In the event of objection, an election shall be held. In the other case, the new bylaws will be accepted.

So language wise, it is "In case they do object" and the alternative shall be "In case they do not object".

Do you have a proposal to make that more clear?
Comment 4 Tobias Mueller 2012-09-23 21:10:54 UTC
Created attachment 225038 [details] [review]
replaced "relevant reason"
Comment 5 Vincent Untz 2012-10-02 06:24:57 UTC
I don't see anything obviously wrong in the diff. That being said, it would have helped me to have two patches: one for the formatting changes (or fixing trivial mistakes like missing words), and one for the real content changes :-)
Comment 6 Tobias Mueller 2012-11-07 13:42:13 UTC
Committed to foundation-web as 0f2851ef9f867950d6aea791ac2306e61a2854d4

FWIW: I removed the following notice on the wordpress instance serving the foundation websites. I include that change here, because the wordpress is horribly revisioned and it might be useful in the future. I also uploaded the new PDF to that wordpress.


<h2>Changes to the Bylaws</h2>

<p>This notice is in accordance with Article XVII of our current Bylaws as of 2002. It will be held up until 2012-10-31.</p>

<p>It was proposed to have the bylaws of the GNOME Foundation changed. The exact proposal can be found in the archives: <a href="https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-announce/2012-October/msg00000.html">https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-announce/2012-October/msg00000.html</a>.
If you are a member of the GNOME Foundation and object the proposed changes, you need to make your objection known by 2012-10-31 by posting to <a href="https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/">foundation-list</a>.</p>