|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 16 new of 115 responses total. |
cmcgee
|
|
response 100 of 115:
| 
Mar 2 13:28 UTC 2004 |
Rane, Roberts Rules would not have stopped the voting. It would have required
1) a public vote on the issue so we could know who was on the prevailing side,
2) another vote to decide whether or not to reconsider the original motion,
and then, having done all that (and assuming the vote to reconsider failed),
(3) a pubic vote on the new motion.
I, for one, am not willing to give up the secret ballot and impose more
procedures. If a member enjoys gaming the rules, having fewer rules rahter
than more rules makes more sense.
|
mdw
|
|
response 101 of 115:
|
Mar 7 04:34 UTC 2004 |
I voted "no". I don't think grex needs to restore swiss cheese.
Additionally, although I think this is nitpicking, the procedure above
describing how the board & staff are supposed to implement this is
overly detailed. The board would almost certainly apoint a "volunteer",
and might want to have the ability to pick 2 or more people for
different parts of this. However, fixing this doesn't make this
particular resolution any more palatable to me so it's just a nit.
|
remmers
|
|
response 102 of 115:
|
Mar 8 11:30 UTC 2004 |
No vote from me too.
|
salad
|
|
response 103 of 115:
|
Mar 8 15:08 UTC 2004 |
AHAHAH YEAH< YOU REFUSE TO VOTE
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 104 of 115:
|
Mar 8 16:14 UTC 2004 |
I was wavering, voted yes, then changed my vote to NO on this one. I don't
think it actually solves any problem.
|
scott
|
|
response 105 of 115:
|
Mar 8 16:54 UTC 2004 |
#5 of 10: by James Howard (jp2) on Sun, Mar 7, 2004 (19:29):
I would assist if you voted for and supported my proposal.
|
remmers
|
|
response 106 of 115:
|
Mar 8 17:10 UTC 2004 |
The members decided, nothing new has been offered in support. Hence
an immediate revote is simply bad parliamentary procedure, regardless
of whether the rules allow it or not. Thus my "no".
|
jp2
|
|
response 107 of 115:
|
Mar 8 18:36 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 108 of 115:
|
Mar 8 19:37 UTC 2004 |
And it wouldn't have made any difference in the voting outcome, and it still
won't.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 109 of 115:
|
Mar 8 20:23 UTC 2004 |
Retract entry 4: I change my vote on the new policy, not on the 2nd vote on
the same old issue. I"ve never wavered about -not- restoring the items.
|
remmers
|
|
response 110 of 115:
|
Mar 10 17:29 UTC 2004 |
Voting on this ended at midnight (EST) last night. When I get an
up-to-date voter list from the treasurer, I'll count the ballots and
post the results.
I would have asked the treasurer earlier, but I forgot that the vote
was ending -- a side effect of my recently training the vote program
to shut off a vote automatically at the scheduled time, rather than
me having to do it manually.
|
remmers
|
|
response 111 of 115:
|
Mar 11 12:48 UTC 2004 |
Results are as follows: 44 out of 77 eligible members voted.
Yes: 4
No: 40
The proposal is defeated.
|
rational
|
|
response 112 of 115:
|
Mar 11 12:55 UTC 2004 |
Let's vote RIGHT this time, Grex.
|
salad
|
|
response 113 of 115:
|
Mar 11 15:00 UTC 2004 |
C'mon guys, do it RIGHT
|
albaugh
|
|
response 114 of 115:
|
Mar 11 18:46 UTC 2004 |
Even had all the other 33 eligible voters voted Yes, the proposal would still
have failed. Time to put this to rest, once an for all.
|
jesuit
|
|
response 115 of 115:
|
May 17 02:14 UTC 2006 |
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
|