|
Grex > Coop13 > #40: Proposed bylaw amendment to close the quorum gap | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 91 responses total. |
flem
|
|
response 16 of 91:
| 
Dec 2 18:03 UTC 2003 |
As I seem to recall, you were working to *exploit* another (perceived)
hole.
|
jp2
|
|
response 17 of 91:
|
Dec 2 18:09 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 18 of 91:
|
Dec 2 20:42 UTC 2003 |
You have certainly substantiated your claim to being a(n) &%#&$
|
gelinas
|
|
response 19 of 91:
|
Dec 2 21:20 UTC 2003 |
Actually, you've merely made claims. Others have produced evidence to show
your claims false, but then you simply deny it is evidence, because we are
saying you things YOU don't like.
|
jp2
|
|
response 20 of 91:
|
Dec 2 21:30 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 21 of 91:
|
Dec 2 23:19 UTC 2003 |
Pointer: http://grex.org/local/grex/bylaws.html
|
gelinas
|
|
response 22 of 91:
|
Dec 2 23:27 UTC 2003 |
See also the specific proposal that was passed to remove the requirement of
a quorum.
|
jp2
|
|
response 23 of 91:
|
Dec 3 00:04 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 24 of 91:
|
Dec 3 01:55 UTC 2003 |
No, you *claimed* such. But you are not a credible witness.
|
jp2
|
|
response 25 of 91:
|
Dec 3 03:04 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 26 of 91:
|
Dec 3 03:57 UTC 2003 |
Your discussion of monetary policy comes immediately to mind. Would you
prefer I word it, "I do not find you to be credible"? The result is the same.
|
naftee
|
|
response 27 of 91:
|
Dec 3 03:57 UTC 2003 |
There was lots of evidence compiled that proved David Irving was a holocaust
denier.
|
naftee
|
|
response 28 of 91:
|
Dec 3 03:58 UTC 2003 |
SZLIPP!!
|
gull
|
|
response 29 of 91:
|
Dec 3 14:30 UTC 2003 |
This is reminding me a lot of the "photocopying a driver's license is
illegal" nonsense we went through a while back. I think this is just a
game jp2 likes to play.
|
jp2test
|
|
response 30 of 91:
|
Dec 3 14:45 UTC 2003 |
You know, I freely admit I was wrong about that. But I am not the one who
brought up the quorum issue. That was other. I just agree with him.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 31 of 91:
|
Dec 3 14:48 UTC 2003 |
Yes, you did bring it up, as an excuse for asking for the membership list.
|
jp2test
|
|
response 32 of 91:
|
Dec 3 15:14 UTC 2003 |
Wait, hold on. What I am saying is that I said a quorum has not been met in
some years. Other is the one who realized that the quorum was not properly
eliminated. Frankly, I wish I were the one to come up with that. You know
how much I love hassling you guys.
|
other
|
|
response 33 of 91:
|
Dec 3 16:37 UTC 2003 |
I did no such thing. You suggested it, and I merely made a proposal
to eliminate any doubt or confusion the current wording might allow.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 34 of 91:
|
Dec 4 01:53 UTC 2003 |
Y'know, it just occurred to me that there may be another solution.
People are not generally required to vote. Since the vote is announced
in the motd, everyone who logs in during the polling period is aware of
the election. Therefore, they can be judged "present" if they log in,
even if they decide not to vote. At the end of the polling period, it
should be fairly simple to determine what number of members logged in
during the interval of interest.
Still, I do not think a 'quorum' is currently required. And I like it
that way.
|
carson
|
|
response 35 of 91:
|
Dec 11 20:29 UTC 2003 |
(I didn't like it at all when the quorum was "removed," but I remember
being clearly in the minority on that one. my complaint remains that
if an issue or an election fails to stir enough passion in the body to
generate a reasonable turnout, then the issue or election is not worth
deciding and should be modified until it is worth deciding.)
(I don't find it at all ironic that apathy about Grex and its
governance seems to have increased in the intervening years.)
|
davel
|
|
response 36 of 91:
|
Dec 12 13:38 UTC 2003 |
(what carson said)
|
gull
|
|
response 37 of 91:
|
Dec 12 15:04 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:35: How would you suggest dealing with the situation where a
quorum problem makes it impossible to elect a board? Or should the
quorum only apply to non-board elections?
|
remmers
|
|
response 38 of 91:
|
Dec 12 16:08 UTC 2003 |
(Since this item is a formal member proposal for a bylaw amendment,
I'll don my voteadm hat for a moment and remind folks of timelines
and procedures. Discussion of a proposal takes place for a minimum
of two weeks. After that, the proposer may decide either to submit
a final wording for a vote by the membership, or to drop the
proposal. In order for a bylaw amendment to pass, at least 3/4
of those members who vote must vote in favor.
Eric posted this item on December 1, so the two week period ends
December 14.)
|
carson
|
|
response 39 of 91:
|
Dec 13 08:55 UTC 2003 |
re #37: (I thought I stated it pretty clearly the first time, but
to specifically address your question: if the candidates
available for election are so milquetoast that, despite
their numbers, they are unable to stir enough passion in the
electorate to generate a reasonable turnout, then they should
not be elected. what I would have rather seen when this
occurred way back when was a new slate of candidates and/or
a realization by the Grex membership that, hey, if you're not
willing to participate in how Grex is managed, then Grex
will go away. I think it's important for members to feel
like members and accept the responsibility of being members,
and, one more time, I don't believe that that is the present
case.)
|
gull
|
|
response 40 of 91:
|
Dec 13 19:37 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:39: Right, but what happens if we don't elect a board? Does the
old board remain in effect? Does Grex have no board? Does Grex shut
down? That's what I'm not clear on.
|