|
Grex > Coop10 > #7: Bylaw Amendment Proposal: Corporate Memberships |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 135 responses total. |
jared
|
|
response 25 of 135:
| 
Jun 9 06:11 UTC 1997 |
I don't think I'd open myself to that one, dave.
|
dpc
|
|
response 26 of 135:
|
Jun 14 00:40 UTC 1997 |
Hm. So far no blast from the bylaw literary critic...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 27 of 135:
|
Jun 14 16:37 UTC 1997 |
So far, no suggested bylaw wording.
|
janc
|
|
response 28 of 135:
|
Jun 25 16:02 UTC 1997 |
Here's a draft of a bylaw amendment enabling "institutional members" without
a right to vote. I've tried to keep the changes clear but minimal. Changed
or added sections are in [brackets]. Only changed sections are given here.
============================================================================
ARTICLE 2: MEMBERSHIP
a. Any [individual or institution] supporting the goals and objectives of
this organization as enumerated in the Preamble, and who agrees to
abide by these bylaws and pay dues, is eligible for membership.
b. To be eligible to vote, [an individual] must be a current member and
have paid a minimum of three months dues.
[c. Institutional members are never eligable to vote.]
ARTICLE 3: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
a. The Board of Directors (BOD) shall consist of seven [individual]
members of Grex, and shall include a chairperson, a secretary, and a
treasurer.
d. Nominations for the BOD will be submitted by November 15th.
Any person may submit nominations. All nominees must be [individual]
Grex members as of the start of the voting period. Board elections
will be held between the 1st and 15th of December. The required
number of candidates receiving the largest number of votes are
seated on the board commencing January 1st.
============================================================================
NOTES:
- Nothing is said here about internet access or validation. None of that
is covered in the bylaws. The intent is that institutional members
would have net access and would be validated by whatever method makes
sense (see the discussion above for examples).
- I've insisted that board members be individual members. You could let
institutional members designate a representative who could run for a
board seat, but I decided it wasn't an option worth bothering with.
- Section 5a says:
Any member of Grex may make a motion by entering it as the
text of a discussion item in a computer conference on Grex
designated for this purpose.
I haven't changed this to "individual member" because I think it would
be perfectly OK to let institutional members put forward proposals for
a membership vote. They just can't voe on them.
Please comment.
|
aruba
|
|
response 29 of 135:
|
Jun 25 17:11 UTC 1997 |
Looks good to me, Jan.
|
valerie
|
|
response 30 of 135:
|
Jun 25 20:11 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
dpc
|
|
response 31 of 135:
|
Jun 26 13:42 UTC 1997 |
Excellent, Jan!
|
janc
|
|
response 32 of 135:
|
Jun 29 03:51 UTC 1997 |
Is there any further discussion on this? Or should I go ahead and call for
the vote?
|
mary
|
|
response 33 of 135:
|
Jun 29 13:05 UTC 1997 |
There are a couple of statements which should, at some point, be re-worded
for clarity, but they have been part of the bylaws from the beginning and
have nothing to do with this proposal.
I think your wording is just fine and I hope this passes.
|
janc
|
|
response 34 of 135:
|
Jul 1 04:42 UTC 1997 |
A agree. I think it would be worthwhile to do a language clean-up amendment.
In particular, I don't think the statement of purpose fully captures Grex's
mission. However, for this point, the goal should be to keep the changes as
minimal and directed as possible.
|
janc
|
|
response 35 of 135:
|
Jul 1 04:53 UTC 1997 |
OK, I hereby call for a vote on the following proposal:
============================================================================
Given that Grex's bylaws currently allow only individuals to be members, it
is proposed that the following amendments be made to allow institutions that
donate money to Grex to hold non-voting Grex memberships. [Changed portions
are enclosed in square brackets.]
ARTICLE 2: MEMBERSHIP
a. Any [individual or institution] supporting the goals and objectives of
this organization as enumerated in the Preamble, and who agrees to
abide by these bylaws and pay dues, is eligible for membership.
b. To be eligible to vote, [an individual] must be a current member and
have paid a minimum of three months dues.
[c. Institutional members are never eligible to vote.]
ARTICLE 3: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
a. The Board of Directors (BOD) shall consist of seven [individual]
members of Grex, and shall include a chairperson, a secretary, and a
treasurer.
d. Nominations for the BOD will be submitted by November 15th.
Any person may submit nominations. All nominees must be [individual]
Grex members as of the start of the voting period. Board elections
will be held between the 1st and 15th of December. The required
number of candidates receiving the largest number of votes are
seated on the board commencing January 1st.
=============================================================================
|
scott
|
|
response 36 of 135:
|
Jul 1 12:19 UTC 1997 |
Sounds good to me.
|
remmers
|
|
response 37 of 135:
|
Jul 1 13:07 UTC 1997 |
Okay, I'll set up the vote program sometime today. According to
the election procedures in the bylaws, the vote will run for a
period of 10 days, with a 3/4 majority of yes votes by those
voting needed for passage.
|
remmers
|
|
response 38 of 135:
|
Jul 1 15:32 UTC 1997 |
The polls are now open. Type !vote at a bbs or menu prompt,
or just plain vote at a shell prompt, to cast a ballot. To
allow 10 full days for voting, the polls will close at midnight
EDT on July 11.
|
valerie
|
|
response 39 of 135:
|
Jul 1 16:54 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 40 of 135:
|
Jul 1 19:22 UTC 1997 |
I voted.
|
bruin
|
|
response 41 of 135:
|
Jul 1 19:36 UTC 1997 |
Me 2!
|
dang
|
|
response 42 of 135:
|
Jul 1 22:23 UTC 1997 |
Yo tambien.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 43 of 135:
|
Jul 2 01:01 UTC 1997 |
The first draft of this motion was posted on 25 June (response #28 above).
The bylaws provide
a. Any member of Grex may make a motion by entering it as the
text of a discussion item in a computer conference on Grex
designated for this purpose. The item is then used for
discussion of the motion. All Grex users may participate in
the discussion. No action on the motion is taken for two
weeks. At the end of two weeks, the author may then submit a
final version for a vote by the membership. The vote is
conducted on-line over a period of ten days.
This means that discussion must continue for two weeks from 25 June,
or until 9 July. The current vote is premature.
I offer as a suggested change to the wording in c.:
[c. Institutional members are [not] eligible to vote.]
"Not" is preferable to "never", as the question is whether *or not*
intitutional members are eligible to vote.
|
dpc
|
|
response 44 of 135:
|
Jul 2 02:27 UTC 1997 |
I voted.
|
remmers
|
|
response 45 of 135:
|
Jul 2 15:26 UTC 1997 |
Re #43: The substance of the proposal was entered in #0 on June
2. Wording is always subject to change during the discussion
period, so the fact that it didn't get *called* a motion until
response #28 strikes me as splitting hairs. The full two weeks
(and more) was allowed for discussing this proposal.
So I disagree that the vote is premature. I don't make the final
decision on that, of course. But I'll keep the polls open until
the announced date, unless the board decides that Rane is
correct.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 135:
|
Jul 2 21:09 UTC 1997 |
NO wording of a motion was entered in #0. The members and other interested
persons can only respond to the particulars of a motion if the motion is
stated. The bylaw quoted above specifies that any member "may make a
motion by entering it as the text of a discussion item". Entering an idea
for discussion, without the specifics of a motion, is very common here. We
often do this, and after some discussion the proposer of the idea may or
may not enter a *motion*, which starts the two-weeks clock. This was not
done here until 25 June.
In this case we were presented with the text of a motion only 6 days
before the vote was begun. The spirit of the bylaw is that there be a two
week period for consideration of a motion, since not everyone logs in
nearly every day. I believe that this current vote is in violation of both
the letter and spirit of the bylaws. I request that it be halted, and the
proper discussion period be held.
|
valerie
|
|
response 47 of 135:
|
Jul 2 21:23 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 48 of 135:
|
Jul 2 21:36 UTC 1997 |
The title "Bylaw Amendment Proposal: Corporate Memberships" and
the fact that the substance was entered in #0 seems to
differentiate this from other "entering an idea for discussion"
items.
What do other folks think?
|
scg
|
|
response 49 of 135:
|
Jul 2 21:48 UTC 1997 |
I'm not sure, but this does strike me as too early.
|