|
Grex > Coop9 > #26: Proposed Bylaw Amendment: Clarify who can be a board candidate and who can make nominations | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 21 new of 120 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 100 of 120:
| 
Jan 25 21:40 UTC 1997 |
Re: 99
I don't think there is much danger of that. The worst that could really
happen is that we get a slate of candidates that gets disqualified, forcing
another election. And we don't really have to spend any money to run another
election.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 101 of 120:
|
Jan 30 02:22 UTC 1997 |
I voted. I did. Not like it counts, but hey . .
I got this cool sticker!
|
davel
|
|
response 102 of 120:
|
Jan 30 11:01 UTC 1997 |
You *did*? They didn't give *me* one!!
<turns green>
|
dpc
|
|
response 103 of 120:
|
Jan 31 21:18 UTC 1997 |
Hm. I got one.
|
remmers
|
|
response 104 of 120:
|
Feb 1 13:51 UTC 1997 |
Results of the vote on the proposal:
Yes 41
No 2
The proposal passed.
For comparison, here is the non-member vote:
Yes 35
No 10
|
richard
|
|
response 105 of 120:
|
Feb 1 18:46 UTC 1997 |
I still think the proposal shouldnt be considered passed unless
the "yes" vote is more than 50% of the total membership (which it
isnt, not even particularly close) If an amendment cant get the
active support of a majority of all members, it just looks bad.
|
remmers
|
|
response 106 of 120:
|
Feb 1 21:58 UTC 1997 |
There used to be a quota like that in the bylaws. The bylaws
were amended to remove it a couple of years ago. Yes, by a
majority of the total membership, and a substantial majority
at that. Undoing the amendment will require another amendment,
so to get your wish you will either have to persuade a member
to propose such an amendment or become a member and propose it
yourself. Oh, and of course persuade enough people to your
point of view that more people vote for it than vote against
it.
Good luck! :)
Speaking personally: As one who supported the just-voted-on
proposal, I was happy to see it squeak through. :)
|
tsty
|
|
response 107 of 120:
|
Feb 2 10:24 UTC 1997 |
grex is now a pay-to-participate system. embarrassing!
|
remmers
|
|
response 108 of 120:
|
Feb 2 12:08 UTC 1997 |
Nope, not at all. Just to run for and serve on the board. Hey,
you can even be fairwitness of the flagship policy-discussion
conference without paying a single dime! :)
|
krj
|
|
response 109 of 120:
|
Feb 2 18:14 UTC 1997 |
Richard, just for once, please be a graceful loser.
(Thought I must admit that Richard's response #105 brought a smile to my
face and brightened my morning!!)
ts #107: oh, come on, this just restates the widely-held
understanding of the original rules. It doesn't change a thing
in the way we govern Grex.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 110 of 120:
|
Feb 2 19:22 UTC 1997 |
...or the way 99.99% of membership organizations are governed. (I'm waiting,
though, for TS to start an organization. We can then all run for its board
without joining!).
|
tsty
|
|
response 111 of 120:
|
Feb 3 17:35 UTC 1997 |
...but when you ARE elected, you WILL pay! <gg>.
if i remembr right, and am certain to be corrected if incorrect, i
was a member when appointed. but, imo, that situation *should* have
been able to occur whether or not i was a member, nice, but not
mandatory. staff & board, however, are a differnt matter.
i wish mta had nto had her nomination pulled (or that she had not
declined the nomination) except and unless she knew that the
burden was going to be too great.
imo, i would have volunteered to sponsor at least 1/2 of her
membership and i strongly suspect there are at least a half-dozen
other ppl who would have done the same.
the disagreement i have with the 'refinement' is that it goes
muchtoo far in its 'refinement'. 'serving' and 'eligible to
be considered *for* service' are distinctly different.
i really believe the former IS the sense of the founders. equally
strong is my belief that the latter is an example of recent
paronia, although the wording might be stronger than necessary.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 112 of 120:
|
Feb 4 07:35 UTC 1997 |
The paying members have spoken, so shaddup already.
|
davel
|
|
response 113 of 120:
|
Feb 4 12:17 UTC 1997 |
TS, I'd sure read what was said by those founders who posted in the discussion
of this vote that you're dead wrong. Do you have any evidence about the
"sense of the founders" other than what *you* happen to prefer?
|
valerie
|
|
response 114 of 120:
|
Feb 5 13:38 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
ladymoon
|
|
response 115 of 120:
|
Feb 18 02:31 UTC 1997 |
Re: 112, and money is all that matters, isn't it, Kevin?
|
tsty
|
|
response 116 of 120:
|
Feb 25 11:22 UTC 1997 |
re 114 ..."should," i agree. "required" was not the "intent" until
after kerouac/richard nominated me and i chose to become a member, again,
if elected. also, the official membership records of grex will prove
conclusively that i *was* a "member of grex before running forthe board."
at the very instant of the election, i was not. even mdw objected
to that particular form of discrimination (someting about a shame that
someone would be ineligible due to a late-mailed/delivered check).
are there even two of the founders who would conceive of me not
living up to a promise/pledge? <there might be one, i dunno>
are there even two logins who, having some knoweldge of *me*, would
even conceive of me not paying in full for the duration (at least)
of the term of office? <there might be one, i dunno> remember, i pledged
not only that, but that pre-payment might even be a reasonable approach.
it is emminently clear that "intent" is only what is currently
fashionable, for the moment.
|
srw
|
|
response 117 of 120:
|
Feb 27 23:57 UTC 1997 |
The Bylaw change wasn't about *YOU* TS. It was a generality.
So it doesn't matter if anyone can conceive of you not living up to a
pledge or not.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 118 of 120:
|
Feb 28 01:50 UTC 1997 |
Wow. He is here! How are the fish and chips? {inside joke}.
|
tsty
|
|
response 119 of 120:
|
Mar 2 10:41 UTC 1997 |
re #117 .. that was the largest public argument, whether or not i had
given enough money recently to be 'eligible to be considered.'
...and i probably *had*, but i didnt call it membership $$. and, i just
kept quiet about it. further, the 'generality' existed until narrow-
mindedness struck.
|
mta
|
|
response 120 of 120:
|
Mar 4 00:35 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|