|
|
| Author |
Message |
jp2
|
|
Request for Membership List
| 
Dec 1 15:50 UTC 2003 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 71 responses total. |
cmcgee
|
|
response 1 of 71:
|
Dec 1 17:29 UTC 2003 |
I don't think so. As far as I know, the information I gave Grex to verify
my membership is not public information.
If you get a court order forcing Grex to reveal my address then they may.
Otherwise, no deal.
|
jp2
|
|
response 2 of 71:
|
Dec 1 17:46 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 3 of 71:
|
Dec 1 18:04 UTC 2003 |
Out of curiosity, I'd like to know the purpose for which you wish to
obtain this list.
|
jp2
|
|
response 4 of 71:
|
Dec 1 18:22 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 5 of 71:
|
Dec 1 19:47 UTC 2003 |
What #1 said.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 6 of 71:
|
Dec 1 19:58 UTC 2003 |
Why do you need the addresses to establish if a quorum will be
established? Unless you plan on contacting all members personally and
urging them to vote.
And to establish if a quorum was established after the election has
taken place, all you need is the number of members and the number of
members that voted. I don't think there would be a problem with that
(you can get the number of members through the !members program). But
remmers would be the right person to know if he can share the voting
numbers information.
|
jp2
|
|
response 7 of 71:
|
Dec 1 20:06 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 8 of 71:
|
Dec 1 20:06 UTC 2003 |
When the election is over, I always report the number of members
who voted.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 9 of 71:
|
Dec 1 20:12 UTC 2003 |
From Jamie's reference:
2) If the requirements of this section have not been complied
with, on demand of a shareholder or member in person or by proxy,
who in good faith challenges the existence of sufficient votes to
carry any action at the meeting, the meeting shall be adjourned
until the requirements are complied with. Failure to comply with
the requirements of this section does not affect the validity of
an action taken at the meeting before the making of such a demand.
On what ground do you contend there are not sufficient votes to elect
directors?
Remember, the challenger must have "good faith."
|
tod
|
|
response 10 of 71:
|
Dec 1 20:34 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 11 of 71:
|
Dec 1 20:48 UTC 2003 |
Maybe he's planning on a bulk mail campaign to promote his candidacy.
|
jp2
|
|
response 12 of 71:
|
Dec 1 20:57 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 13 of 71:
|
Dec 1 20:58 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 14 of 71:
|
Dec 1 21:01 UTC 2003 |
How did you determine the quorum?
|
jp2
|
|
response 15 of 71:
|
Dec 1 21:15 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 16 of 71:
|
Dec 1 21:26 UTC 2003 |
In that case, you may find the following of interest:
History of Amendments:
January 12, 1995: Articles 4d, 4e, 5b, and 7 (eliminating quorum
criteria)
The bylaws were amended specifically to NOT require a quorum for elections
or other voting.
|
jp2
|
|
response 17 of 71:
|
Dec 1 21:35 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 18 of 71:
|
Dec 1 22:21 UTC 2003 |
I don't agree. It seems to me that a statement that quorum criteria have
been removed is a positive statement that no quorum is required.
Unfortunately, the coop with the amendment is apparently not on line,
so I can't look at what was actually approved.
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 71:
|
Dec 1 22:42 UTC 2003 |
"Unless a greater or lesser quorum is provided in the articles of
incorporation, in a bylaw adopted by the shareholders or members, or
in this act, shares or members entitled to cast a majority of the
votes at a meeting constitute a quorum at the meeting."
Interesting. Can our system of asynchronous online voting be
properly considered a "meeting"? I doubt there is legal precedent
to establish the case.
|
mary
|
|
response 20 of 71:
|
Dec 1 23:06 UTC 2003 |
I'll just read in the text of that vote. It is found
at /usr/local/grexdoc/archives/votes/vote03 .
PROPOSAL:
I propose that the Grex Bylaws be amended as follows:
Articles 4d, 4e, 5b and 7 should be changed to delete the reference
to any requirement that a specified percentage of the membership must
vote for an election to be valid.
Current wording:
4d. Nominations will be submitted by November 15th and elections
held between the 1st and 15th of December for terms to
commence January 1st. 2/3 of the membership must vote for
the election to be valid. The nominees receiving the most
votes will be appointed to the BOD.
Proposed wording:
4d. Nominations will be submitted by November 15th and elections
held between the 1st and 15th of December for terms to
commence January 1st. The nominees receiving the most
votes will be appointed to the BOD.
Current wording:
4e. A BOD member shall be removed from office if they resign,
not be available for meetings or respond to BOD
communications for a period of four months, or be voted out
of office by a vote of the membership, with 2/3 of the
membership voting and 3/4 of the ballots cast in favor of
removal.
Proposed wording:
4e. A BOD member shall be removed from office if they resign,
not be available for meetings or respond to BOD
communications for a period of four months, or be voted out
of office by a vote of the membership, with 3/4 of the
ballots cast in favor of removal.
Current wording:
5b. A motion will be considered to have passed if, and only if,
at least 50% of the membership has cast a ballot, and more
votes were cast in favor than against.
Proposed wording:
5b. A motion will be considered to have passed if more
votes were cast in favor than against, except as provided
for bylaw amendments.
Current wording:
7. Amendments to these bylaws may be proposed and voted upon at any
time according to the procedures of Article 5a. In order for a
proposed amendment to take effect, 2/3 of the membership must
vote, with a 3/4 majority voting in favor of the change.
Proposed wording:
7. Amendments to these bylaws may be proposed and voted upon at any
time according to the procedures of Article 5a. In order for a
proposed amendment to take effect, a 3/4 majority voting in favor
of the change is required.
VOTE RESULTS:
Results posted on Thursday, January 12, 1995.
64 of 83 eligible voters cast ballots.
Results: 55 For 9 Against
The bylaw amendment passed.
|
jep
|
|
response 21 of 71:
|
Dec 1 23:53 UTC 2003 |
I'm afraid jp2 is bringing to Grex the latest round of contributions he
has presented to M-Net; nitpicking designed to make it more difficult
to administer the system. I hope Grex won't get mired in this
garbage. I'm happy to say that M-Net, which is more susceptible to it,
hasn't paid much attention to it, either.
Jamie appears desperate for someone to think he's clever. I suppose he
is -- but how much more clever it would be to make some sort of
positive contribution.
|
jp2
|
|
response 22 of 71:
|
Dec 2 00:24 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 23 of 71:
|
Dec 2 00:52 UTC 2003 |
It's not broken. I'm for leaving it alone.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 24 of 71:
|
Dec 2 01:21 UTC 2003 |
me too.
|