|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 184 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 100 of 184:
| 
Dec 15 03:44 UTC 1994 |
I'm still listed as a member, news user, etc. Some years it just
isn't worth while to contribute.
|
remmers
|
|
response 101 of 184:
|
Dec 15 04:12 UTC 1994 |
(Hey John, you're a staff member on another system. Do you always
get every piece of business taken care of instantly?)
|
chi1taxi
|
|
response 102 of 184:
|
Dec 15 04:41 UTC 1994 |
May while interest is up on the quorum problem, someone should start an
initiative for a referendum to change the bylaws to require a 1/2 quorum
for officer elections. I do feel we should keep 2/3 for bylaw changes.
The referendum could be scheduled for early February so everyone can get
over the holidays and spend January huddling around the warmth of their
computers.
BTW, the renewal of my membership is official now, and I've voted. Non-
members - oh forget it, I forgot that the deadline is tomorrow and they
don't have emailing of money vouchers yet.
|
aruba
|
|
response 103 of 184:
|
Dec 15 06:30 UTC 1994 |
"turnout" doesn't seem to work for me. How many have voted now?
|
cicero
|
|
response 104 of 184:
|
Dec 15 07:03 UTC 1994 |
If this vote fails, is it possible for the board to act to reduce or eliminate
quorum at least as a temporary emergency measure, or do we have to go through
the whole discussion/vote rigamarole in order to be able to elect the new
board?
|
chelsea
|
|
response 105 of 184:
|
Dec 15 10:46 UTC 1994 |
Chill, jep. We don't give bonus points for petulance over here.
|
robh
|
|
response 106 of 184:
|
Dec 15 11:51 UTC 1994 |
Re 104 - Odds are, we'll have to go through the whole election
process all over again. And then, when we get even fewer votes
for that election (because people become disgusted with the whole
thing), we'll need another election. And another. And so on.
It should be really fun, when January 1996 rolls around, all
of the current Board's terms have expired, and we still haven't
gotten a quorum for anything. Well, the Board meetings will
be shorter, at least.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 107 of 184:
|
Dec 15 11:59 UTC 1994 |
And then there are the not so rosey scenarios to consider... ;-)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 108 of 184:
|
Dec 15 15:38 UTC 1994 |
I liked scg's proposal, up above, to extend the election until enough
people vote that we've made quorum. It's unorthodox, but the other possible
solutions on the table are unorthodox too, and extending the election
is probably the only way we'll get enough votes to get an election to stick.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 109 of 184:
|
Dec 15 17:01 UTC 1994 |
It violates the bylaws: frowned upon by the MIchigan Department of
Commerce. I think the best course is to combine another balloting in
January, with a rewite of those parts of the bylaws - both require the 2/3
quorum, and more on the ballot might get more interest. I strongly favor
eliminated voting quorums alltogether: things are only going to get worse,
with more users and a smaller fraction of participants in the "business"
of the organization. Its happened, of course, because of restricting
outgoing telnet and ftp to members, so we get a lot of "telnet/ftp
members" who don't care about Grex principles, etc.
|
remmers
|
|
response 110 of 184:
|
Dec 15 18:16 UTC 1994 |
|
chi1taxi
|
|
response 111 of 184:
|
Dec 16 01:05 UTC 1994 |
To pile more on this "super election" in January, we should also make valid a
class of non-voting members. Another possibility is a rule that missing two
elections of any sort makes one a non-voting member. Perhaps with a right
to petition for reinstatement to the voting rolls. Before putting "two
strikes and you're out" onto a ballot, we should probably try to get an
opinion from the commerce dept as to whether it would be legal.
|
cicero
|
|
response 112 of 184:
|
Dec 16 04:35 UTC 1994 |
re #111:
If we remove the need for quorum none of these suggestions is nescessary.
People who don't have an opinion won't vote and that'll count as abstaining.
All problems solved. I really don't see what having a quorum does for us.
If people don't vote, then (as here in the USA) they get exactly the government
that they deserve.
|
remmers
|
|
response 113 of 184:
|
Dec 16 05:20 UTC 1994 |
I depermitted the vote program at midnight.
44 members voted; quorum is 55.
|
cicero
|
|
response 114 of 184:
|
Dec 16 05:25 UTC 1994 |
Well folks, What now? We can't call the election valid, we can't extend it
(aperently) I guess we start over. Someone go make some nominations.
|
steve
|
|
response 115 of 184:
|
Dec 16 05:40 UTC 1994 |
I like Steve's (scg) idea of extending the voting.
|
scg
|
|
response 116 of 184:
|
Dec 16 05:49 UTC 1994 |
Somebody has to make a decision, i guess, and no matter what gets decided
it will be in conflict with the bylaws. I still support reopening the
polls counting everybody who has already voted as having voted, but still
letting new people vote, but others apparrently have other ideas. Who
gets to decide what to do?
|
srw
|
|
response 117 of 184:
|
Dec 16 06:42 UTC 1994 |
Whatever we do, it must NOT be in conflict with the bylaws.
I believe holding a new election would not be in conflict, but
it is clear that it would not be any more successful. I
think we should proceed to amend the bylaws to eliminate the
quorum requirement on board elections.
|
scg
|
|
response 118 of 184:
|
Dec 16 06:56 UTC 1994 |
It's not really clear to me that holding a new election is ok under the
bylaws.
|
srw
|
|
response 119 of 184:
|
Dec 16 07:02 UTC 1994 |
The bylaws state in article 4c:
c. If an office is vacated before expiration of its term, an
election to fill the vacancy shall take place within three
months. A partial term so created of six months or less will
not count toward the two-consecutive-term limitation.
|
robh
|
|
response 120 of 184:
|
Dec 16 09:46 UTC 1994 |
I do like the idea of holding another election - well, I don't
*like* it, but we don't have much choice there - but I think
we should wait a few months, and have a seperate election
on allowing abstentions/reducing the quorum requirements/whatever
first. I don't like the idea of combining the two elections
into one mega-election, if anything that's going to make
people less likely to vote. "Hey, didn't we just have an
election? And now I have to vote for two things? Forget it,
I won't bother."
|
nephi
|
|
response 121 of 184:
|
Dec 16 11:28 UTC 1994 |
Is cicero's quorum idea (as appears in response #75) possible? If so, I
*really* support it.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 122 of 184:
|
Dec 16 14:18 UTC 1994 |
I took the election notice out of the motd.
|
kentn
|
|
response 123 of 184:
|
Dec 16 14:45 UTC 1994 |
<sniff><whipes a tear from cheek> Time for nominations, and this time,
let's have some good debate that differentiates the candidates. (I
think last time we had a lot of very good nominees...it was very difficult
to tell them apart based on their views, though).
|
scg
|
|
response 124 of 184:
|
Dec 16 22:52 UTC 1994 |
That bylaw that srw quoted only covers people who leave the board before
their terms are up. The current outgoing board members will be leaving at
the end of their terms, so that bylaw does not apply in this case.
|