|
Grex > Coop13 > #40: Proposed bylaw amendment to close the quorum gap | |
|
| Author |
Message |
other
|
|
Proposed bylaw amendment to close the quorum gap
| 
Dec 1 22:57 UTC 2003 |
In order to clarify established intent and eliminate potential conflict
resulting from possible differences between relevant law and our intent, I
propose an amendment to the relevant portions of the bylaws of Cyberspace
Communications, to wit:
For all matters subject to a vote of the membership, a quorum
shall consist of the lesser of
1. Ten members, or
2. Half the number of members whose votes have been counted in
the matter at hand at the end of the election period.
|
| 91 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 1 of 91:
|
Dec 1 23:05 UTC 2003 |
If I read point 2 correctly, you're saying that if only four members
vote, the quorum becomes two? Since you say the lesser of 1 and 2
applies, isn't that equivalent to eliminating quorums altogether?
(Which would be my preference, actually.)
|
other
|
|
response 2 of 91:
|
Dec 1 23:16 UTC 2003 |
Yes, but by encoding a flexible quorum defined as some number
smaller than the number of voters, we altogether avoid the problem
of a law superceding our intent.
I'm not sure that the current definitions reflected in item:39:20 do
not render this proposal moot, but I think it very likely, given the
wording.
However, given that this proposal defines a quorum and not the
proportion of votes required for a measure to pass or an election to
be won, it would in no way conflict with the existing bylaws.
|
other
|
|
response 3 of 91:
|
Dec 1 23:19 UTC 2003 |
By the way, if anyone has a suggestion as to which portion of the
bylaws should be amended by this proposal, please make the case and
the proposal will be adjusted accordingly.
This might be appropriate to add as a new subsection rather than as
an amendment of an existing one.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 4 of 91:
|
Dec 1 23:26 UTC 2003 |
I think making it a separate section is the right way to go.
|
remmers
|
|
response 5 of 91:
|
Dec 1 23:26 UTC 2003 |
I really really think that bylaw provisions should not be worded in
such a way that they are apt to make readers scratch their heads
and say "Huh?"
|
remmers
|
|
response 6 of 91:
|
Dec 1 23:28 UTC 2003 |
If an amendment is needed at all - and I'm not convinced that it
is - why not just say: "A quorum shall consist of the number of
members casting votes"?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 7 of 91:
|
Dec 1 23:33 UTC 2003 |
Hmm... If we can't say
A quorum is not required.
let's say
A quorum shall consist of one member.
|
other
|
|
response 8 of 91:
|
Dec 2 00:17 UTC 2003 |
I'm not opposed to the notion, but we should keep the contextual bit
at the beginning.
|
jp2
|
|
response 9 of 91:
|
Dec 2 00:28 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 10 of 91:
|
Dec 2 14:39 UTC 2003 |
I dunno what I was trying to do. Somehow it just didn't seem proper
to just call one person a quorum. Maybe I need(ed) more sleep...
|
jp2
|
|
response 11 of 91:
|
Dec 2 14:59 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 12 of 91:
|
Dec 2 15:03 UTC 2003 |
I think the second wording is better. It accomplishes the same thing
and is clearer. There will be less opportunity for future versions of
jp2 to argue about it. ;>
|
jp2
|
|
response 13 of 91:
|
Dec 2 15:14 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
davel
|
|
response 14 of 91:
|
Dec 2 16:49 UTC 2003 |
Those things always involving complete capitulation by those who disagree with
you?
|
jp2
|
|
response 15 of 91:
|
Dec 2 17:08 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 16 of 91:
|
Dec 2 18:03 UTC 2003 |
As I seem to recall, you were working to *exploit* another (perceived)
hole.
|
jp2
|
|
response 17 of 91:
|
Dec 2 18:09 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 18 of 91:
|
Dec 2 20:42 UTC 2003 |
You have certainly substantiated your claim to being a(n) &%#&$
|
gelinas
|
|
response 19 of 91:
|
Dec 2 21:20 UTC 2003 |
Actually, you've merely made claims. Others have produced evidence to show
your claims false, but then you simply deny it is evidence, because we are
saying you things YOU don't like.
|
jp2
|
|
response 20 of 91:
|
Dec 2 21:30 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 21 of 91:
|
Dec 2 23:19 UTC 2003 |
Pointer: http://grex.org/local/grex/bylaws.html
|
gelinas
|
|
response 22 of 91:
|
Dec 2 23:27 UTC 2003 |
See also the specific proposal that was passed to remove the requirement of
a quorum.
|
jp2
|
|
response 23 of 91:
|
Dec 3 00:04 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 24 of 91:
|
Dec 3 01:55 UTC 2003 |
No, you *claimed* such. But you are not a credible witness.
|