|
|
| Author |
Message |
steve
|
|
Straw poll time
| 
Dec 12 01:49 UTC 1994 |
OK, this is just a little poll to unscientifically ask who might
be in favor of changing our bylawys such that we require a simple
majority of votes on issues, rather than the 2/3 membership required
as we have no.
If you're in favor of changing say "yes".
If you'd rather not change this say "no".
For the purposes of not taxing my pea-brain, please state "yes" ot
"no" first. Then ramble on as desired.
But lets not discuss it here--just make a statement.
|
| 80 responses total. |
steve
|
|
response 1 of 80:
|
Dec 12 01:50 UTC 1994 |
Yes.
As we grow, getting people to vote for a large percentage gets harder
and harder. I know that two other organizations I've belonged to have
had the exact same problem as we're having. So, I think a simple majority
will be best in the long run.
|
scg
|
|
response 2 of 80:
|
Dec 12 04:15 UTC 1994 |
Yes.
As much as I don't like the idea of only a fraction of the members voting,
if we need todo this to make the voting process work then I don't see how
we can avoid it. I still think, even after making this change, that we
need to make very sure that we get the word out to everybody that there is
an election. We can't make everybody vote, but we have to make sure that
everybody has the opertunity.
|
pegasus
|
|
response 3 of 80:
|
Dec 12 06:03 UTC 1994 |
Why don't we drop the membership requirement to vote? Just have a majority
of users voting in/out candidates and policies. This should help those who
worry about Grex moving away from being a coop run by the people. Instead
of people who've given money making the decisions, it would be all the
people who use grex.
Pattie
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 80:
|
Dec 12 07:13 UTC 1994 |
Yes
That's illegal, Pattie. Under state law. Grex is a legally member based
corporation. However you can do what a land trust I know does. Membership
dues are $1/year. Donations above that are gratefully accepted.
Some corrections to #0: the bylaw requirements are that for *elections*,
2/3 of members must vote, but the winners are those with the most votes
(not necessarily a majority). For *issues*, however, only 1/2 of the
members must vote (and a majority is required). This straw vote presumably
addresses both types of voting simultaneously, i.e., remove the
required minimums for elections and voting on issues.
|
srw
|
|
response 5 of 80:
|
Dec 12 07:25 UTC 1994 |
Yes.
We have to face the fact that we need a larger membership base to provide
the services that the members and the public want. Many of these people
are happy to support us, but aren't interested in governance. I think this is
legitimate, and that Grex can still be a cooperatively run organization
under these circumstances.
By putting pressure on members to vote, we could possibly even drive members
who want to support us away. This is bad.
|
cicero
|
|
response 6 of 80:
|
Dec 12 08:02 UTC 1994 |
YES (See my remarks in the now totally mis-named "candidate's forum")
What we are really talking about here is removal of the quorum requirement.
|
robh
|
|
response 7 of 80:
|
Dec 12 11:31 UTC 1994 |
Yes. (Bis surprise, huh?)
It's gotten increasingly hard to actually get 2/3 of the
membership to vote, and I don't see it getting any better
in the future.
|
kentn
|
|
response 8 of 80:
|
Dec 12 12:48 UTC 1994 |
Yes.
We'd better resolve this before it becomes impossible to make the change...
|
remmers
|
|
response 9 of 80:
|
Dec 12 13:49 UTC 1994 |
I guess I need clarification on what STeve is asking in #0. We hold
two kinds of votes online: (1) board elections, and (2) policy
decisions (such as the vote on internet access policy). If the
question is whether to eliminate a quorum for votes of type (2), my
answer is a definite "no".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 10 of 80:
|
Dec 12 15:30 UTC 1994 |
If the straw is divided, my votes are yes and yes.
Arguments for this I have given in Item 28. The only voting quorums I see
as necessary are those required by State law.
|
steve
|
|
response 11 of 80:
|
Dec 12 18:04 UTC 1994 |
(To be honest John, I hadn't thought of their needing to be a
difference so I put them together. I see better now what you're
asking, but I still feel that a simple majority is "best" from a
pragmatic point of view.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 80:
|
Dec 12 20:21 UTC 1994 |
The exceptions to "simple majority" in RRO are those motions that stop
debate or are not debateable. "Calling the question" is the foremost of
these. It is not debateable, and for that reason requires a higher level
of support (2/3 of those voting) to be adopted. Nothing, under RRO,
requires that a minimum fraction of members vote. This requirement appears
for some actions, in State law, because corporations generally cannot hold
Assemblies, and therefore a higher order of agreement is called for in the
absence of an opportunity to discuss the issues.
|
davel
|
|
response 13 of 80:
|
Dec 12 20:55 UTC 1994 |
No.
|
scg
|
|
response 14 of 80:
|
Dec 12 21:53 UTC 1994 |
I certainly would not agree to a bylaw change if I thought it
would give people the opertunity to propose something very quietly and
shove it through with only one or two votes, but Idon't think that could
happen here. When things are voted on here, there is always a waiting
period and at least one item to discuss it. I think we're safe as far as
preserving peoples' ability to find out about elections.
Another idea that might work instead of lowering the quorum is to
have every member specify at the time they join whether they want to be
voting or nonvoting members, with the stiuplation that they could decide
to change their status at any time. We could then only count voting
members when it came time for having a quorum.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 15 of 80:
|
Dec 13 06:35 UTC 1994 |
Dues (/month)
Galaxy membership $6 includes voting privilege
Boring membership $3 excludes voting privilege
|
remmers
|
|
response 16 of 80:
|
Dec 13 14:27 UTC 1994 |
Remove quorum for board elections: undecided.
Remove quorum for member policy votes: no.
|
jep
|
|
response 17 of 80:
|
Dec 14 02:07 UTC 1994 |
Yes. Some method of being a member without a requirement to vote is
the only way I'll return to being a member. (I terminated my membership
over this issue a short while ago.)
|
chelsea
|
|
response 18 of 80:
|
Dec 14 02:16 UTC 1994 |
Jep, you should have just donated $59 and spared yourself all this
agony.
|
steve
|
|
response 19 of 80:
|
Dec 14 02:54 UTC 1994 |
...Or $60 even, and declinded acceptig membership.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 20 of 80:
|
Dec 14 07:37 UTC 1994 |
Anyone can donate anything to Grex at any time, without becoming a member.
Just thought I'd clear that up.... ;->. Membership is just a more
personally supportive way to donate *and* participate. However it also
entails obligations if the membership class is high enough. (I posted
somewhere else a tongue-in-cheek idea to have a voting and non-voting
membership; there are many other possibilities, with "titles" based on
level of donation. Life membership is also an option (most life
memberships in organizations cost ca. 20X annual dues, so that would be
$1200 on Grex - something to consider for starting to build an endowment
fund)).
|
kentn
|
|
response 21 of 80:
|
Dec 14 16:08 UTC 1994 |
Okay, I donate to Grex my income tax liability for 1994...have fun with
it. :)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 80:
|
Dec 14 18:50 UTC 1994 |
Ah hah! But grex can refuse a donation, too! (Otherwise, we would get
too many fried HDs.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 23 of 80:
|
Dec 14 19:07 UTC 1994 |
no
Keeping a super-majority, as was the (Ibelieve) original intent,
means that changes need to be more convincing and have a higher
degree of agreement among the membership.
more later.
|
steve
|
|
response 24 of 80:
|
Dec 14 19:09 UTC 1994 |
We've never turned down an offer for stuff. If its electronic,
somebody wants it. We've proven that at numerous JCC's.
I should ammend that: we have turned down the offer of Eagles,
the huge watt-sucking monster disk drives that eat $35.00 of
electricity each month... So I guess we do have limits. ;-)
|