Posts : 8986
Points : 10042
Join date : 2009-09-20
Location : Rome, Italy
|Subject: Dyebat's blog Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:13 pm
Posted today by Dyebat on the blog SB Fandom: Our Story (link
If anyone cares to know what my interest in Article X of the by-laws at SBFII is, it is this:
I WROTE IT.
Perhaps I should have copyrighted it. They are my words, as written on June 19, 2010, and no change was made to them by staff or Board during the period of review before they were published. I have every right to explain the original intent so that it is not misinterpreted.
For any organization, the issue of changing by-laws has to be addressed in the initial by-laws or else the organization is stuck with the same ones forever. Article X was written to be enabling, not restricting. It states one way in which they MAY be changed. It does not say they can't be changed in any other way. If I, the staff, or the Board intended that to be the only way, we could have added "only" or "exclusively". None of us did so.
The Board has every right to choose not to change by-laws until next year, but that is THEIR choice, not the requirement of Article X. A "no" vote on the proposed new by-laws does not mean they HAVE to wait to make changes until next year. They have every right to do so, but to tell members it is Article X that requires that, is incorrect. How members vote, and what the Board does after that vote, is none of my business, but misinterpreting my words and their intent IS my business.
J.K. Rowling is finished writing the Harry Potter series, but if someone changed the ending, and said that was what she really intended to write, do you think she might object?
Posted by dyebat at Thursday, June 02, 2011