|
Grex > Coop9 > #26: Proposed Bylaw Amendment: Clarify who can be a board candidate and who can make nominations | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 120 responses total. |
srw
|
|
response 41 of 120:
| 
Dec 23 18:55 UTC 1996 |
I like option number 1.
|
dpc
|
|
response 42 of 120:
|
Dec 24 17:04 UTC 1996 |
FWIW, Arbornet just went through the process of amending its election
bylaws. Somehow this sentence survived unamended: "The candidates
wo receive the most votes shall be deemed elected to regular two-year
terms..." If this is good enough for Arbornet, where the bylaws
are allegedly mind-numbing in their complexity, it should be good
enough for Grex. 8-)
Also, Grex' bylaws clearly state, as #0 shows, that "a 3/4
majority voting in favor of the change is required." If the bylaws
required a 3/4 majority of all members, instead of just 3/4 of those
voting, they would say so.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 43 of 120:
|
Dec 24 19:08 UTC 1996 |
Apparently they aren't elected - just *deemed* elected. This is what happens
when tyros write bylaws. That phrase in the Arbornet bylaws isn't needed if
they have adopted RRO, and it has that "most" inconsistency - but also, the
correct grammar would be "The candidates *that*....", since it is not possible
for all the candidates to receive "the most votes".
|
popcorn
|
|
response 44 of 120:
|
Dec 25 01:02 UTC 1996 |
The current wording is Jan's, in #30.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 45 of 120:
|
Dec 25 06:47 UTC 1996 |
My proposed rewording of the last sentence, in #40, got one vote. ;->
|
janc
|
|
response 46 of 120:
|
Dec 25 17:04 UTC 1996 |
Re #40: I don't it. You object to more than one nominee recieving the "most
votes" but not to more than one nominee recieving "the largest number of
votes?" I don't see the improvement.
|
ajax
|
|
response 47 of 120:
|
Dec 26 03:56 UTC 1996 |
Current (#30): The candidates receiving the most votes are seated on the
board commencing January 1st.
Rane's (#40, suggestion 1): The proper number of nominees receiving the
largest number of votes will be elected to the board.
I prefer Rane's, except that the January 1st date should be added back in
there. There are a few subtle differences. The one you asked about in
particular, "most" vs. "largest," I think was added because "most" could
be stupidly interpreted as "more than half," while "largest" is relative.
"The proper number" also makes it clear that the number of candidates is
independent of the number or ratio of votes.
|
brighn
|
|
response 48 of 120:
|
Dec 26 04:28 UTC 1996 |
For the record, I don't disfavor the proposed amendment, personally. I just
happen to think it's unnecessary. It's pretty, but unnecessary.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 49 of 120:
|
Dec 27 19:05 UTC 1996 |
I didnt say 3/4 of all members should have to vote for an
amendment vote to be valid. Simply that a majoriity (50% plus one)
of the members should be required to have voted, 3/4 of them
in favor, for an amendment to pass. Without minimum requirements,
it would be much too easy for amendments to p[ass and that would be
danegeorous.
dangerous
|
tsty
|
|
response 50 of 120:
|
Dec 27 19:18 UTC 1996 |
why not just leave the situation as is? in addition to the bureaucratic
syrup gumming up things, it *seems* (could be viewed as) an attempt
to circle the wagons in pre-emptive defense of some attack.
|
dpc
|
|
response 51 of 120:
|
Dec 27 19:27 UTC 1996 |
Or pre-emptive attack on a purported defense. 8-)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 52 of 120:
|
Dec 30 14:49 UTC 1996 |
I'm ready for this to go up for a vote. Current wording (newly synthesized
from earlier suggestions) is:
Motion: To change the wording of Section 4d of the bylaws to read as follows:
Nominations for the BOD will be submitted by November 15th.
Any person may submit nominations. All nominees must be Grex members.
Board elections will be held between the 1st and 15th of December.
The appropriate number of candidates receiving the largest number of
votes are seated on the board commencing January 1st.
|
remmers
|
|
response 53 of 120:
|
Dec 30 15:14 UTC 1996 |
Suggestion: Change the phrase "Grex members" to "qualified Grex
voting members" in the 3rd sentence. Shoudln't voting
eligibility be a minimum requirement for candidacy?
I'm a tad busy, so give me a couple days to get the vote program
set up for this, and let me know the final wording. As per the
bylaws, the vote will take place over a period of ten days.
|
robh
|
|
response 54 of 120:
|
Dec 30 15:22 UTC 1996 |
I'd prefer that candidates be eligible voters as well, yes.
|
remmers
|
|
response 55 of 120:
|
Dec 30 15:46 UTC 1996 |
Sorry to pick another nit, but how about making it read "All
nominees must be Grex voting members by the start of the
election period." That's consistent with how we did it before
this last election, and makes it precise as to when a candidate
has to meet the qualifications.
|
robh
|
|
response 56 of 120:
|
Dec 30 15:48 UTC 1996 |
By "election period", do you mean the beginning of nominations
or the beginning of voting?
|
dang
|
|
response 57 of 120:
|
Dec 30 16:00 UTC 1996 |
Voting, I would assume. People shoule be able to become members during the
nomination period.
|
ajax
|
|
response 58 of 120:
|
Dec 31 00:56 UTC 1996 |
John's suggestions are more than "nits;" the first one changes the
meaning of the proposal. It would effectively raise the minimum price
of election entry from $6 to $18.
The second suggestion, while not all that important, changes how I
interpreted voting eligibility. I assumed a person's vote would be
counted if they voted when they were an eligible voter. If the intent
is that you need to be eligible at the beginning of the voting period,
that should certainly be spelled out.
One more *really* obscure detail, combining the two issues John raised:
what if the nominee is an eligible voter, but their membership expires
between the time they accept a nomination, and when the voting period
starts or ends? Perhaps we should reduce ambiguities by programming
the bylaws in C :-).
|
davel
|
|
response 59 of 120:
|
Dec 31 02:18 UTC 1996 |
Re #58 second paragraph: John was speaking of nominees, not voters, as such;
I'd hesitate to deduce anything about whose votes get counted from those
particular comments.
Regarding the 3rd paragraph, the bylaws already address the need for board
members to be Grex members; and this proposal would address their need to be
Grex members to be candidates for the board. If someone's membership lapses
*that* briefly, I for one wouldn't complain. (If I thought someone's sole
reason for becoming a member was to run for office, I'd likely vote against
that person, but that's neither here nor there.)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 60 of 120:
|
Jan 2 04:48 UTC 1997 |
Okay, new wording. My inclination is that board candidates just need to be
members, but not necessarily voting members, to run. I don't think it should
be expensive to run. So I haven't changed the wording of that part.
However, I have clarified what date people need to be members by, in order
to run.
Motion: To change the wording of Section 4d of the bylaws to read as
follows:
Nominations for the BOD will be submitted by November 15th. Any person
may submit nominations. All nominees must be Grex members as of the
start of the voting period. Board elections will be held between the 1st
and 15th of December. The appropriate number of candidates receiving the
largest number of votes are seated on the board commencing January 1st.
|
ajax
|
|
response 61 of 120:
|
Jan 2 06:51 UTC 1997 |
Looks good to me...figure on at least one "yes" vote. :)
|
remmers
|
|
response 62 of 120:
|
Jan 2 10:41 UTC 1997 |
Okay, if that's the final wording I'll try to get the vote
program up within the next couple of days.
|
dpc
|
|
response 63 of 120:
|
Jan 2 18:16 UTC 1997 |
Works for me.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 64 of 120:
|
Jan 2 20:31 UTC 1997 |
Thanks John.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 65 of 120:
|
Jan 3 05:24 UTC 1997 |
I would suggest changing "as of" to "at" (word economy - minor), and change
"appropriate" to "required" (because the bylaws require certain numbers
of seats to be filled, while "appropriate" raises questions about the nature
of the appropriateness).
|