|
|
| Author |
Message |
jp2
|
|
Member Resolution
| 
Feb 9 18:24 UTC 2004 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 115 responses total. |
gelinas
|
|
response 1 of 115:
|
Feb 9 18:28 UTC 2004 |
I really hope you will reconsider and not bring this to a vote, jp2.
It should be obvious that it will fail, and probably by an even larger
margin. For example, I voted in favour of the motion the first time.
I will vote against it the next time, and on any subsequent occassions.
We lost. Get over it. Move on.
|
jp2
|
|
response 2 of 115:
|
Feb 9 18:32 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 3 of 115:
|
Feb 9 18:32 UTC 2004 |
But it is NOT going to be undone.
|
jp2
|
|
response 4 of 115:
|
Feb 9 18:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 5 of 115:
|
Feb 9 18:38 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 6 of 115:
|
Feb 9 19:22 UTC 2004 |
Apparently we do need a bylaw revision calling for a period before revoting,
to stop Jamie from introducing this proposal a third time around the end of
February.
|
ryan
|
|
response 7 of 115:
|
Feb 9 19:24 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 8 of 115:
|
Feb 9 19:51 UTC 2004 |
So, how about those Grammy awards, eh? I heard the White Stripes had a
pretty good appearance, did anyone else catch them?
|
jp2
|
|
response 9 of 115:
|
Feb 9 19:55 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 10 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:12 UTC 2004 |
I'd strongly oppose a bylaw amendment which specified a period of time
between repeat propositions or propositions which are effectively
repeats. I would, however, support one which gave the voteadm
discretion, subject to review by the board in the event of complaint,
to not bring to vote any proposal the voteadm considers to have been
proposed spuriously or with intent to annoy rather than to reasonably
effect change.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 11 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:14 UTC 2004 |
I too would rather that jp2 hadn't re-created this proposal verbatim.
However, s/he is within his/her rights to do so, certainly more than the
item killer. But I recommend a NO vote to this, should it ever come to
a vote. The membership has spoken, and it's time to move on, get over it.
|
jp2
|
|
response 12 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:32 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 13 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 14 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:34 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 15 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:41 UTC 2004 |
Suggested modification:
|
jp2
|
|
response 16 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:42 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
robh
|
|
response 17 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:43 UTC 2004 |
I'm willing to vote "no" on this proposal at least as many times as
jp2 is willing to propose it. (I can actually envision it becoming
a ritual, continued long after everyone has forgotten what the items
were about... Hey, this could be the start of a new religion!)
|
twinkie
|
|
response 18 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:44 UTC 2004 |
It is much easier to read, though.
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:46 UTC 2004 |
Thanks! Readability was a chief concern, and I worked long and hard
into^H^H^H^H on it.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 20 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:50 UTC 2004 |
Re. 0: !!!
|
albaugh
|
|
response 21 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:52 UTC 2004 |
I have nothing to suggest as to rewording. This is a clone of the proposal
which failed, which did not do so due to lack of clarity. It failed because
enough members looked but didn't buy. There will be no binge buying on the
same merchandize.
|
jp2
|
|
response 22 of 115:
|
Feb 9 20:53 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 23 of 115:
|
Feb 9 21:05 UTC 2004 |
jp2, let's practice getting a grip, shall we?
|
jp2
|
|
response 24 of 115:
|
Feb 9 21:07 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|