[OpenID board] [board-private] FW: Bylaws v1.5 - Action Required
Don Thibeau (OIDF ED)
don at oidf.org
Thu Aug 20 12:47:30 UTC 2009
I will have our lawyers make the accommodations referenced below
From: Mike Jones [mailto:Michael.Jones at microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 9:05 PM
To: Don Thibeau (OIDF ED); John Ehrig
Cc: board at openid.net
Subject: RE: [board-private] FW: Bylaws v1.5 - Action Required
David raises some good points. Here's my comments.
I believe that 3.1(b) should make it clear that that Sustaining members are
organizations and that the organization appoints their board representative.
That will clearly differentiate sustaining and community members.
I'm OK with the removal in 3.1(c), because I believe removing it doesn't
practically change the meaning of the document.
Given that "regular" meetings are meetings of the board, the removal in 4.9
makes sense to me.
David's right that 5.2(b) needs to be corrected to make it clear that all
directors elect new community directors - not just the community directors.
(Just like all directors decide whether to admit new sustaining members as
I agree with David on 5.15(b) as well, as this is in contradiction our
standing policy (affirmed by a unanimous board vote) that all directors are
eligible to vote on all issues.
I agree with David on 5.15(c) as well. The text should make it clear, in
the case of sustaining members, that it is the sustaining member being
removed (the organization) and not just the individual representative
appointed by that organization.
David is also right about 7.4(a), as it fails to include the International
representative and the Community representative. It is also misleading
about how the committee members are chosen, as all these members are chosen
by the board from among itself - not just the International and Community
From: Don Thibeau (OIDF ED) [mailto:don at oidf.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:50 PM
To: Mike Jones
Subject: FW: [board-private] FW: Bylaws v1.5 - Action Required
Mike; Do you have a point of view on the comments below?
I hope to avoid more time and legal expense if possible
From: David Recordon [mailto:david at sixapart.com]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 5:38 PM
To: John Ehrig
Cc: board at lists.openid.net
Subject: Re: [board-private] FW: Bylaws v1.5 - Action Required
Some questions (and moving this to the public list since it doesn't need to
- The difference in definition of Sustaining Member and Community Member
seems to be in Exhibit A (the dues schedule) though the qualification text
seems identical in Section 3.1(b). This document structure seems awkward
and confusing if you're not already familiar with how the Foundation has
- In 3.1(c), why are we removing, "Each member shall have the right to vote
on each matter submitted to a vote of the members of the corporation"?
- In 4.9 why are we removing the ability for action by written ballot on
regular meetings and keeping it only for annual and special meetings?
- 5.2(b) says that, "The Community Members shall elect the number of
directors ("Community Directors". Given 3.1(b), wouldn't that mean that
Sustaining Members are not eligible to vote for Community Directors?
- 5.15(b) has a comment asking if removal of a director by a 75% vote of
the other directors should be limited to community directors. I do not
believe that it should be limited.
- 5.15(c) used to provide a means for the Membership to remove any
director. This has been changed to limit the Membership to only be able to
remove community directors. As with my previous comment, I think that any
extremely unlikely removal situation should be possible for all directors.
Whether it is a person or a company, if 75% of the board votes to remove
them or the Membership does, that ultimately places the Membership in
control of the Foundation as I believe it should be.
- I don't think that 7.4(a) correctly represents the current makeup of the
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the board