There is a version of the changes with “tracked changes” showing, as well as a clean version.
Vote results
During the vote, which took place from August 17 to 25, 80 people voted, 74 people accepted the change, 6 people refused.
The proposed change is therefore approved. Many thanks for your participation!
Two-year terms for board members
The main change to the bylaws is to institute two-year terms for Board members, using two staggered cohorts. In this cohort scheme, the current 7 seats would be divided into a 3-seat cohort that would be up for election in 2023, and a 4-seat cohort up for election in 2024. In subsequent years, there would be elections for the alternating cohorts of 3 and 4 seats.
There will continue to be no term limits for serving on the Board.
This improved continuity of membership allows the Board to retain institutional memory and historical context. This change will also ease the onboarding process for new board members; it takes time to learn the mechanics of being on the Board and the historical reasons for the existence of various procedures and processes. Knowing their term is for at least two years will allow new members the time to get their bearings and provide the most effective guidance to the Foundation.
For 2023 elections, the 7 futur members will be divided into two groups. The members who have served the fewest number of terms on the Board would be allowed to serve a two-year term, and the ones who have served the most terms would be allowed to serve a one-year term. Subsequent votes (in 2024 and beyond) would always be for two year terms.
This will result in the Board having the greatest amount of renewal, providing greater diversity of experience and perspective.
Inclusive language
While formulating the changes to the bylaws, we noted that there were many places in which unnecessarily gendered language had been used. So we changed that.
While the bylaws are a formal document that probably could do with updating in other respects, the principle of ‘minimal invasiveness’ requires to keep changes to a reasonable minimum. Taking out unnecessarily gendered language is, in our opinion, both necessary and not disruptive.