Updated By-Laws available for Review

[Emil Velikov]

On 22/03/15 15:19, Martin Peres wrote:
> On 22/03/2015 17:00, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 22/03/15 13:17, Martin Peres wrote:
>>> On 22/03/2015 10:25, Egbert Eich wrote:
>>>> Dear Members,
>>>>
>>>> the updated version of the X.Org By-Laws is now available.
>>>> You can find them on the By-Law review page at
>>>>     http://www.x.org/wiki/BylawReview/
>>>> Together with the current By-Laws or at:
>>>> http://www.x.org/wiki/BylawReview/ProposedBylawsSPI2015.pdf
>>>>
>>>> The change of By-Laws becomes necessary so that X.Org
>>>> can join SPI. For more information on the merger please
>>>> have a look at the elections page:
>>>> http://www.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors/Elections/2015/
>>>>
>>>> The election will start on
>>>>                Monday, March 23, 2015 at 00:00 UTC.
>>>>
>>>> This election is to elect 4 of the 8 seats on the
>>>> X.Org Board of Directors and approve the change to
>>>> the X.Org By-Laws and by the approve the merger with
>>>> SPI.
>>>>
>>>> The Board of Directors and Election Committee would like
>>>> to apologize for the last minute delay of the election
>>>> which became necessary to finalize the revision of the
>>>> By-Laws.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>      Egbert.
>>> Dear members,
>>>
>>> To ease the review, I converted our bylaws from odt to Latex before we
>>> started making amendments.
>>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> Thanks for the Latex conversion of the ByLaws. It makes reviews a
>> breeze :-)
> 
> You are welcome :) I figured that everyone in our community would know
> how to review those changes if I used git.
>>
>>> The canonical repo is:
>>> http://anongit.freedesktop.org/git/xorg/foundation/
>>> bylaws.git
>>>
>> The cannonical repo does not seem to include the SPI branch. Is that
>> intentional ?
> 
> It does, have you capitalised spi? This works for me:
> git checkout -b SPI origin/SPI
> 
Nicely spotted - had them in lower case. /me finishes the email and
quickly hides in shame.

>>
>>> For some reason we never managed to have cgit working on this repo, so
>>> here is a copy in my personal repo:
>>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~mperes/xorg_bylaws/
>>>
>>> Hope this helps you make an informed choice.
>>>
>> Here are some trivial bits which I've noticed:
>>
>>
>> Article: Purpose
>> ----------------
>>   - Grammar fix - s/this graphics stack/the graphics stack/ ?
> 
> This has been done intentionally to refer to the stack introduced in
> the previous bullet point.
Considering that there is a single, unique, mention/definition of
"graphics stack" in the whole document there is no need to explicitly
refer to it via "this". After all we say "the sun" rather than "this
sun". Using "this" can lead to confusion that the document will contain
(contains) references to "other" graphics stacks.

>>   - If/When needed one can add a definition for "Graphics stack" in the
>> next section.
> 
> Not sure if it is necessary, but that is doable.
>
Precisely. Perhaps should have kept it as (Note to self).

>>
>>
>> Section: Banking Arrangements
>> -----------------------------
>>   - "...only by check or other order for payment after the approval..."
>>
>> Does this mean that all forms of payment has to follow the approval
>> procedure, or that applies only for non check payments ? I feel that the
>> statement is rather ambiguous as is.
> 
> Any form of payment will have to be handled by SPI. This is not mandated
> by SPI but we figured that not having any director given this right would
> mean less bureaucracy when switching directors.
> 
> Let's see if someone can come up with a better wording.
> 
Seems like my point was too vague. Let me transcribe the sentence into a
day-to-day example:


"You can go to work _only_ by car or other means of transportation after
..."

"You can go to work by car, or other means of transportation, after ..."


The former is a odd form of expression, which can lose "only" and gain a
few commas ? If "only" is required then the actual meaning on the
sentence is hidden and, imho, should to be elaborated upon.


Cheers,
Emil