|
Grex > Coop10 > #7: Bylaw Amendment Proposal: Corporate Memberships |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 135 responses total. |
valerie
|
|
response 75 of 135:
| 
Jul 12 13:30 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
dpc
|
|
response 76 of 135:
|
Jul 12 15:48 UTC 1997 |
Am I correct in concluding that I don't have to vote again?
|
remmers
|
|
response 77 of 135:
|
Jul 12 20:57 UTC 1997 |
That's right, you don't have to vote again. The voting period
has just been extended a bit to account for the fact that the
first formal wording was given not in response #0 but in a later
response.
By my calculations that means that voting should end July 19,
rather than July 11 as originally announced.
|
remmers
|
|
response 78 of 135:
|
Jul 20 04:13 UTC 1997 |
Midnight of July 19 has passed, the polls are closed, and the
votes have been counted. Of 90 members eligible to vote, 30
voted -- 29 in favor of the bylaw amendment, 1 against. The
amendment passes.
(The unofficial non-member vote was 23 in favor, 8 against.)
|
atticus
|
|
response 79 of 135:
|
Jul 20 04:33 UTC 1997 |
(is there any way to vote from 'backtalk'? i know this question comes
rather late in the day; still ...)
|
remmers
|
|
response 80 of 135:
|
Jul 20 06:32 UTC 1997 |
(Not yet, but I'm working on it.)
|
mary
|
|
response 81 of 135:
|
Jul 20 14:55 UTC 1997 |
I've updated the archives. The latest version of the Bylaws
are in /usr/local/grexdoc/archives/bylaws.v4.
Something I found when updating the document - in the vote
one of the sections being changed was misidentified as being
Article 3d. It is really Article 4d. I don't think this
should mean much but thought it should be mentioned.
|
dang
|
|
response 82 of 135:
|
Jul 20 23:43 UTC 1997 |
I'll enter the new bylaws into the bylaws item here in coop. Question:
Should I enter the whole thing, or just the changes? For now, I'll enter the
whole thing. Better yet, is there a way I can change the contents of 0?
|
janc
|
|
response 83 of 135:
|
Jul 21 14:30 UTC 1997 |
Editing the item file should work fine, if you want to change the
item text. I think it woould be a reasonable thing to do.
I entered my response in the wrong item. Here are the relevant parts:
I suppose we right now have one institutional member, convocat. If this is
retroactive (I gather Convocat doesn't mind) then convocat loses its vote,
and should be taken out of the voters group in the /etc/group file.
We should probably update our literature to indicate that (1) institutional
memberships are welcome, but (2) they don't get a vote.
There'd been talk about having lists of institutional and individual donor
on the web page. Probably only people who want to be listed should be.
We should think about that.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 84 of 135:
|
Jul 21 16:11 UTC 1997 |
Unless I misread the motd, this motion passed 29-1?
|
aruba
|
|
response 85 of 135:
|
Jul 21 17:33 UTC 1997 |
Re #83: I guess you could argue that the motion was retroactive, but we did
very specifically address the issue of whether convocat would be grandfathered
in the May (April?) board meeting - and we decided it would be. I agree that
it would be simpler to take it out of the voters group right now, but I don't
think we should unless Kami gives her consent. I sent her mail about it, but
she's out of town at the moment. I think you're probably right, and she won't
care, but if she does, I think we should let convocat stay in the voters group
until October, when its membership runs out.
|
remmers
|
|
response 86 of 135:
|
Jul 21 17:54 UTC 1997 |
Re #84: That's correct, 29-1.
|
valerie
|
|
response 87 of 135:
|
Jul 22 15:43 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
aruba
|
|
response 88 of 135:
|
Jul 23 19:20 UTC 1997 |
Kami gave me permission to remove convocat from the voters group, so I have
done that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 89 of 135:
|
Aug 29 14:59 UTC 1997 |
The posted bylaws (item 2) still need to be amended.
|
mary
|
|
response 90 of 135:
|
Aug 30 02:06 UTC 1997 |
The most up to date version of the Bylaws are at:
/usr/local/grexdoc/archives/bylaws.v4
Rather than altering the original item's content the
newest version could simply be entered as a response
in the item. Since item #2 is frozen this would need
to be done by either tsty or dang.
|
tsty
|
|
response 91 of 135:
|
Sep 1 07:45 UTC 1997 |
the lastest set of ammended bylaws, as you probably have already
seen, is now posted in item #2.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 135:
|
Sep 1 19:04 UTC 1997 |
The information about Grex membership that one gets with the command support
needs to be corrected to include the new Institutional membership.
|
valerie
|
|
response 93 of 135:
|
Sep 2 00:05 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
valerie
|
|
response 94 of 135:
|
Sep 2 00:07 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 95 of 135:
|
Sep 6 04:38 UTC 1997 |
I'd like to suggest a slight revision that will give greater prominance to
Institutional membership. You can read the current version with the
command support at an Ok: prompt, or my version with the command
more /a/r/l/rcurl/support
The main reason for the revision is to make Institutional membership more
attractive to organizations, so that they are more likely to become members.
|
mary
|
|
response 96 of 135:
|
Sep 6 11:33 UTC 1997 |
I think that path is a little wrong.
I had better luck at /a/r/c/rcurl/support.
The wording is fine.
|
scott
|
|
response 97 of 135:
|
Sep 6 12:34 UTC 1997 |
To be really correct, do
~rcurl/support
|
remmers
|
|
response 98 of 135:
|
Sep 6 12:50 UTC 1997 |
If you plan to make this a formal bylaw amendment to be voted
on by the members, I'd suggested entering a new item whose text
is the proposed wording, to conform to the bylaw amendment
procedures, and so that there will be no confusion as to when
the voting can start.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 99 of 135:
|
Sep 6 16:08 UTC 1997 |
Sorry for the typo in #95. Anyway, my suggestion concerns the wording of
the message obtained with the command support which is not a bylaw
matter but just something that was written to encourage and provide
information about membership. Currently, Institutional memberships are
mentioned as sort of an afterthought. I suggest my wording to explain
and encourage them more clearly. I am entering this suggestion in this
item as it is a continuation of the implementation of the recent bylaw
change, and didn't seem worthy of a separate item.
|