[Community] summary of last week's (3/28/2007) call

[Joaquin Miller]

Folks

 From the notes of last weeks call:

>   * Working Groups decide for themselves the process for
>     changing/removing their Stewards.  The only way the Stewards Council
>     can remove a Steward is to decharter a Working Group.  Joaquin
>     suggested we need a provision for removing a Steward in the articles.
>     Bill suggested "replacing" is a better word than "removing."

I don't recall the conversation here, but I'm absolutely certain of 
this: Putting aside which is a better word, 'to replace' and 'to 
remove' have entirely different meanings.

Bill, no doubt, meant 'replacing' was a better word for whatever we 
were talking about at that poing.  I don't believe the Stewards have 
any authority to replace a steward.

If we all agree that the only power the Stewards Council has in this 
area is to remove a working group, then we don't need any process for 
replacing a Steward nor a process for removing a steward.

If our concern is about how to recognize the particular individual as 
indeed the representative of a particular working group, we have a 
good concern.  (This could arise when two persons present themselves, 
both claiming to be the representative.  (Don't think this can't 
happen.)  It could be even stickier, if each has a group behind them, 
both groups claiming to be the authentic working group.)

Let's put the rules for that in the articles.  Nothing is more 
important to the operation of the legal entity than the procedures 
for determining who the Stewards are.

Cordially, Joauqin

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.idcommons.net/pipermail/community/attachments/20070405/4a2b3d67/attachment.html