Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC, TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 06:17:32PM +1300, DPF wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:44:05 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 08:16:29AM +1300, DPF wrote:
> >> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 06:52:12 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >> >Article VI, Section 2(g) only expresses a pre-existing fact,
> >> >and it is there just to be absolutely sure that people understand it:
> >> >The board can do anything it deems necessary, regardless of what the
> >> >DNSO decides. 
> >> 
> >> It is not a simple as that.  The Board is bound by its own bylaws even
> >> though it has the power to change them.
> >
> >That is true, but does not at all contradict the above point -- the 
> >power to change the bylaws really does override being bound by the 
> >bylaws.
> 
> Sorry but they do not.  Apart from anything else often bylaws are
> entrenched with a two thirds or three quarters majority needed to
> change them.

What you say does not contradict what I said: if the board doesn't have
the votes to change the bylaws, then it doesn't in fact have the power
to change them.  I was thinking in terms of a specific matter being at
issue.  I certainly agree that if the board doesn't have the votes to
change the bylaws, then my argument is moot. 

> So that the Board could vote to do something which
> violates the bylaws but get hauled back in line by a Court.  They then
> may not have the numbers to change the bylaws to make their proposed
> action legal.

Yes, that's a good point.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html