[maemo-community] [HFB] Some thoughts concerning "rules of engagement" that fall outside of the Bylaws document...
From: robert bauer nybauer at gmail.comDate: Tue Oct 23 14:08:08 EEST 2012
- Previous message: [HFB] Some thoughts concerning "rules of engagement" that fall outside of the Bylaws document...
- Next message: [HFB] Some thoughts concerning "rules of engagement" that fall outside of the Bylaws document...
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I don't know why accommodations haven't been made in the law for those with speech or hearing disabilities. Perhaps because there is no right to serve on a Board. I have heard of a challenge in New York. This issue is not unique to conferencing calls and occurs even with in-person meetings, although speech-to-text solutions may exist, I'm simply not familiar with the issue. Note that mixed meetings where some participants only participate by chat are not allowed because the other participants can have a conversation that the chat client does not reveal. I'm not sure why the bylaws mention IRC other than council used IRC and people continue to make the mistake of thinking of the Board as analogous to Council. I have to look over the bylaws again anyway. There are many formalities associated with nonprofit corporations. PA has an advantage over many states in that it permits Directors to reside and be outside USA, permit meetings to be outside USA, and do not require any meeting (including Annual Meeting) to be in person. There are other advantages in terms of organization and fundraising flexibility. Plus, it's already done. Plus, do it outside of PA and I can't help with it. Rob On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Lucas Maneos <maemo at subs.maneos.org> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:32:33PM -0400, robert bauer wrote: > > I can't explain why these non-profits have done what they have done. How > > do we know they have not made a mistake? > > We (well, I) don't. But if they are wrong, and the law forbids any > non-voice conferencing, it seems quite discriminatory to me (for > instance it means no one with a speech or hearing disability can serve > on the board) and I'm surprised it hasn't been challenged. > > In light of this, are we sure we want the foundation incorporated in > Pennsylvania? Clearly we want to be able to have IRC meetings (it's > even written in the bylaws), is there some benefit in being in PA that > trumps this? > > L. > _______________________________________________ > maemo-community mailing list > maemo-community at maemo.org > https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/attachments/20121023/82bae5b9/attachment.htm>
- Previous message: [HFB] Some thoughts concerning "rules of engagement" that fall outside of the Bylaws document...
- Next message: [HFB] Some thoughts concerning "rules of engagement" that fall outside of the Bylaws document...
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]