|
Grex > Oldcoop > #40: Proposed bylaw amendment to close the quorum gap | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 91 responses total. |
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.
|
jp2
|
|
response 25 of 91:
|
Dec 3 03:04 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 26 of 91:
|
Dec 3 03:57 UTC 2003 |
Your discussion of monetary policy comes immediately to mind. Would you
prefer I word it, "I do not find you to be credible"? The result is the same.
|
naftee
|
|
response 27 of 91:
|
Dec 3 03:57 UTC 2003 |
There was lots of evidence compiled that proved David Irving was a holocaust
denier.
|
naftee
|
|
response 28 of 91:
|
Dec 3 03:58 UTC 2003 |
SZLIPP!!
|
gull
|
|
response 29 of 91:
|
Dec 3 14:30 UTC 2003 |
This is reminding me a lot of the "photocopying a driver's license is
illegal" nonsense we went through a while back. I think this is just a
game jp2 likes to play.
|
jp2test
|
|
response 30 of 91:
|
Dec 3 14:45 UTC 2003 |
You know, I freely admit I was wrong about that. But I am not the one who
brought up the quorum issue. That was other. I just agree with him.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 31 of 91:
|
Dec 3 14:48 UTC 2003 |
Yes, you did bring it up, as an excuse for asking for the membership list.
|
jp2test
|
|
response 32 of 91:
|
Dec 3 15:14 UTC 2003 |
Wait, hold on. What I am saying is that I said a quorum has not been met in
some years. Other is the one who realized that the quorum was not properly
eliminated. Frankly, I wish I were the one to come up with that. You know
how much I love hassling you guys.
|
other
|
|
response 33 of 91:
|
Dec 3 16:37 UTC 2003 |
I did no such thing. You suggested it, and I merely made a proposal
to eliminate any doubt or confusion the current wording might allow.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 34 of 91:
|
Dec 4 01:53 UTC 2003 |
Y'know, it just occurred to me that there may be another solution.
People are not generally required to vote. Since the vote is announced
in the motd, everyone who logs in during the polling period is aware of
the election. Therefore, they can be judged "present" if they log in,
even if they decide not to vote. At the end of the polling period, it
should be fairly simple to determine what number of members logged in
during the interval of interest.
Still, I do not think a 'quorum' is currently required. And I like it
that way.
|