I understand the perspective that someone may be too nitpicky. And that everyone believes that in a gray area we would all do the right thing. But, if that were the case, then there really wouldn't be a need for bylaws. You need to develop things like bylaws to address contingencies that everyone hopes will never happen.
Ar kayaker has a valid point. And I am okay with it being addressed by amendment after the fact rather than making a change and starting the voting over. But long dogs is already suggesting that would be done in a way that is contrary to what the proposed bylaws say. He says the general membership can vote on an amendment to create a formal way for members to resign. That's not accurate. The board has the only authority to change bylaws. Now that I think about it, it really would be better for the general membership to ratify any changes to the bylaws proposed by the board. But that is not how it is written.