response 51 of 135:

Jul 3 04:24 UTC 1997

I'm inclined to agree that #0 can be considered, so the vote doesn't appear
premature to me. I'm not a board member, but that's my opinion.

response 53 of 135:

Jul 3 12:54 UTC 1997

Hmm. Here's the relevant bylaws section:

     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.

If #0 can't be considered as "entering a motion" for purposes of
starting the clock ticking, then I don't think that anything else
in this item can either. Section a says that the proposal has to be
entered as the "text of a discussion item". This rules out its
being a response entered somewhere after the discussion has begun.

My thinking was that because the title of the item clearly announced
that this was a bylaw amendment proposal, and the substance of the
proposal was given in #0, that the clock could start ticking with #0.
From the fact that he called for a vote, I inferred that this was Jan's
intent as well, although I could be wrong.

But I also don't want to set bad precedents, as they open the door to
future abuses. Would we be doing that by letting the current vote
continue?

response 57 of 135:

Jul 3 21:54 UTC 1997

Think about that Bill.  What would be the good of having
a set two week discussion period that follows the finished
wording?  We have never stipulated this be done.  In fact,
with most votes the final wording of a motion hasn't been
put together until just before the vote started.  The final
wording *follows* the discussion.

Jan made his intentions clear when he stated in #0 he
was proposing a change to the bylaws to clarify
organizational-type accounts.   I think Rane is just
doing what Rane does best. ;-)

response 59 of 135:

Jul 4 17:08 UTC 1997

I guess that when I originally entered the item, I was suggesting an idea and
feeling out what people would want to see in such a proposal.  I got a sense
of general support for the idea, and some good suggestions, like calling it
"institutional membership" rather than "corporate membership".  Then I posted
some suggested wording for the bylaw changing.  After a bit more discussion
I incorporated that wording into a proposal for the bylaw change.

I'm not exactly sure at what point along this sequence the "discussion period"
started.  The subject has certainly been discussed for far longer than this
item has existed.  I think the concept of "institutional memberships" has
recieved adequate discussion, but the specific wording (eg, "never" vs "not")
might have been given a little more time.

I am, however, not happy with making even trivial changes to the wording after
some people have voted.  That's worse than bad grammar.

I would also be unhappy about stopping the vote and starting it again in a
few days.  Many people who voted during the first period, won't vote during
the second because they think they have already voted on this issue.  This
would screw up the vote pretty badly.  That's worse than bad grammar too.

So I think that (1) this vote should continue as started, to minimize
confusion, (2) we should talk about clarifying the bylaws on when exactly the
discussion period starts (if they aren't clear enough already), and (3) we
should someday do a "clean-up" amendment on the bylaws, making a bunch of
non-substantive changes to the bylaws to improve wording and clarity.  We
could fix "never" then.

response 61 of 135:

Jul 5 01:42 UTC 1997

Yes, Mary, you're right. The final version comes *after* the two
weeks of discussion. I guess the point I disagree on is the meaning
of "make a motion by entering it as the text of a discussion item..."
as quoted by Rane in #43. To make a motion, to me, means to propose
formal wording as one would at a meeting. It follows from that
assumption that the discussion period would begin after the first
proposed formal wording was posted.

The other interpretation I see here, with which I do not agree,
is that the motion can be made simply entering the text of a discussion
item as a proposed idea. E.g.

Would other members think it was a good idea to do such and such
because...

That would certainly be a good start to a discusion item, but would
it be the same as making a motion?

response 63 of 135:

Jul 6 14:47 UTC 1997

I agree that wording shouldn't be changed during a vote.

So is the gist of things to treat the clock tick as starting
with the first response in which Jan proposed a formal wording,
and extend the voting period accordingly?

response 65 of 135:

Jul 7 16:58 UTC 1997

It would have been nice to have the announcement of the motion (in the motd,
I mean) occur near the start of the discussion period, not at the start of
voting.

If it was, my apologies - I've been on relatively infrequently lately,
& normally skim the motd rather fast due to its bloat.

response 67 of 135:

Jul 8 09:24 UTC 1997

the strength of  'never' instead of 'not' is important for this change, imo,
adn let the voting extend... adn also put soemtihng in motd.

response 69 of 135:

Jul 8 16:58 UTC 1997

dont put proposal discussions in the motd.  One only has to look at the
Feb/March/April confusion about wording and proposals on read-only access
via the web to see what a mess that would make the MOTD.  We had several
proposals going at once and votes queued up so that they wouldnt overlap.  

Blechh!

response 71 of 135:

Jul 11 18:57 UTC 1997

It's a good thing I logged in today; I voted at the last possible moment,,
just about...  {:

response 73 of 135:

Jul 12 03:32 UTC 1997

I don't like putting discussion notifications in the motd.
I agree that it is expected for people who care to be reading coop.