Comments on USENIX Bylaws

[Mike Blake-Knox]

Some comments on the proposed set of new by-laws follow:

1) It would be virtually impossible for the members to reject a by-law
   amendment proposed by the Board under article 13.2 as it is extremely
   unlikely 25% of the USENIX membership would write a letter on any
   subject within the time limits imposed by the article.  I suggest
   "25 percent of the Members" should be changed to "25 Members" which
   would force the Board to ask for a ballot rather than allowing a
   controversial change to be implemented while opposition was being
   formalized.

2) There is no requirement to ever have an Annual meeting although
   several of the mechanisms in the by-laws count on having one.

3) There is a requirement that the President (and secretary) know where
   the Treasurer's records are stored but no requirement that anyone know
   where the Secretary's records are stored. Is there some deep
   significance in this - are Secretaries inherently more business-like
   than Treasurers?

4) Changing the classes of membership may be very nice but we might be
   gambling on what the costs (membership fees) would be.

5) There should be a mechanism for initiating by-law amendments by
   petition of (say) 25 members.

6) I have just received my official ballot which was dated 9 Dec but
   posted 8 Dec(!). Replies apparently must be *received* by 31 Dec in order
   to be counted. This appears to effectively disenfranchise a large
   portion of USENIX's membership by requiring an impossibly tight
   schedule. This is particularly true at this time of year with Christmas
   mail volume being heavy.

I would suggest that the By-law change be rejected and that USENIX follow
a more consultative process in preparing another set.

Mike Blake-Knox