response 17 of 120:

Dec 19 19:59 UTC 1996

  Re scg's #5, changing "member of Grex" to "member of Cyberspace
Communications."  I think clarifying ambiguity is a good idea, but
"member of Grex" is used in two other places in the bylaws, and
just "the membership" is referred to several times.  It's pretty
clear what the terms mean, but I think to formalize it would best
be handled by a separate amendment.  It would either have to change
several sections of the bylaws, or else define "member," "the
membership," and "member of Grex" explicitly.  I'd vote for such an
amendment, but am reluctant to propose it, just because it's so
trivial.  At any rate, I don't think it's important to change the
wording in #0, since it's consistent with wording elsewhere in the
bylaws.  (Though specifying "Grex" in "member of Grex" and "Grex
member" is unneeded, since only one type of member is talked about
in the bylaws).

response 19 of 120:

Dec 19 21:21 UTC 1996

The bylaws are full of inconsistencies, like different designations
for members. I would recommend at another time, when no one has
anything pressing to work on, that the bylaws be revised for consistency.
This would help the amending process in the future, so that any time an
amendment is proposed, others don't point out the existing inconsistencies.

response 21 of 120:

Dec 19 23:04 UTC 1996

valerie the concerns I raised were settled by theboard admitting 
the bylaws dont prohibit non-users from running.  Brighn is right,
the amendment you propose does nothing, non-members arent going to
get elected anyway.  Just because you think it is tacky or something
for a non-member to want to run for the board doesnt justify an
amendment.

BTW, nobody answered my quorum question.  I assume that in cases
of amending the bylaws, it has to be 3/4  vote of a majority of the
members.  A  bylaw shouldnt be amended of only 10 people vote and 8
vote for it.  That isnt a valid representation of the total
membership.  Not sure what RR says but guessing that an amendment
shouldnt be considered passed unless 2/3 of the total membership
has voted on the issue, and 3/4 of them have voted for the amendment.

Because in this case, a non-vote would be considered a vote against, a
higher standard for amendment votes than for regular votes.

response 23 of 120:

Dec 19 23:17 UTC 1996

Because if only ten people voted, it should be assumed that those who
didnt vote, are apathetic about the amendment.  For an amendment to
a group's bylaws to take effect, it should have to be clear that a  majority
of the
membership *wants* the amendment.  An amendment shouldnt be put in place
simpliy because no one cares about it.

response 25 of 120:

Dec 20 17:39 UTC 1996

Okay, Richard, here is a situation where this ammendment would be helpful.
Suppose a group of people got together and decided to run for the grex board,
and nominated 400 non-members to the board.  Suppose only 300 of them
accepted.  Now, suppose your friendly member saw that there was an election,
and so ran the vote program, and say 305 nominees.  Seeing as you have to go
through all 305 of them and vote yes or no on each one, how many of them would
vote?  I probably wouldn't.  It would destroy the election.  I fully support
this ammendment.

response 27 of 120:

Dec 20 19:33 UTC 1996

I didn't go looking for trouble :-) but since popcorn entered this item,
I'd like to amend the motion from hers:

Nominations will be submitted by November 15th and elections
held between the 1st and 15th of December for terms to
commence January 1st.  To be candidates for the board, nominees
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
must be members of Grex.  Any person may nominate any Grex member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for election to the board.  The nominees receiving the most
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
votes will be appointed to the BOD.

to this:

Nominations of candidates for the BOD will be submitted by November 15th
and elections held between the 1st and 15th of December for terms to
commence January 1st.  To be a candidate for the board, a nominee must be
a member of Grex.  Any person may nominate any Grex member as a candidate.
The candidates receiving the most votes are the members-elect of the BOD.

response 29 of 120:

Dec 20 21:02 UTC 1996

These are bylaws, not the Constitution. Amending the Articles is much more
difficult. 

There is no provision in the Grex member-originated motion procedure for
amendments. Valerie will decided by herself how the motions to be voted upon
will read. The revised wording by Richard in #27 is somewhat smoother, but
the phrase "To be a candidate for the board" should be deleted (what else is
a nominee but a candidate?). The last sentence should end "are elected to the
Board." ("members-elect" is another new term that is not needed). There is
a wording prolem in the original and all suggested amended bylaw, as there
is no way to determine "The candidates receiving the most votes" (one of
the many inconsistencies in the bylaws). This has to be spelled out, though
it is made more awkward by the novel Grex pattern of alternating 3 and 4
vacancies. One could cite "the required number of candidates having the most
votes". Play around with this a while....  ;->

response 31 of 120:

Dec 20 23:47 UTC 1996

I read "candidates with the most votes" and thought it was ambimgous.  How
*many* candidates?

response 33 of 120:

Dec 22 01:37 UTC 1996

Well, if the whole bylaw is up for amendment, at least the phrase "appointed
to the BOD" should be changed to "elected to the BOD", since no one is
ever "appointed" to the BOD. The phrase about "candidates receiving the
most votes" is not sufficient if Grex filled board vacancies by board
vote. You could have more vacancies than the 3 or 4 board members to be
elected. I was thinking of this situation in #29 - however I was wrong:
all seats and vacancies are filled by election. Nevertheless, the phrase
"candidates receiving the most votes" does not define a unique class, 
especially since only *one* candidate receives the most votes. The wording
is flawed, even if one is not left with any alternative to electing either
3 or 4 (or more, if there is a vacancy).

response 35 of 120:

Dec 23 02:59 UTC 1996

I read something in Lingua Franca recently that reminded me of this item.
The U.S. Constitution says:

        No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
        States, at the time of the Adpotion of the Constitution, shall be
             ^
       eligible to the Office of the President.

Note that because of the comma over the caret, the phrase "at the time of the
Adoption of the Consitution" modifies both "a natural born Citizen" and "a
Citizen of the United States".  Bill Clinton wasn't either in 1788, when the
constitution was adopted, so he doesn't qualified.  Every persident since
Zachary Taylor has been unconstitutional.  In fact, some people contend that
many of the early presidents, including George Washington, don't qualify
either, because they were from states that hadn't ratified the consitution
until after the first nine states ratified it, thus bringing it into force.

I haven't seen anyone proposing amendments to remove that comma, but the
government seems to be muddling along somehow.

If Rane can find a good clear wording that solves the definite grammatical
problem of multiple people each having the most votes, fine.  But if we can
iron it out without making it unduely complex, then Grex too will muddle along
somehow with the current troublesome wording.

response 37 of 120:

Dec 23 04:40 UTC 1996

??????? "crass?"   and, fwiw, "re"-join is the accurate verb.
  
i fully support that board members *must* be fully qualified members
during their term in office. outside ofthat, mandatory membership appears
to be coersion. do they have to be "minimum 3-months members before
being able to accept a nomination," i.e., class 80 group, or just 
class 70 group? and when does class 70/80 have to exist?
  
or, does class 80 membership have to exist before the board term begins,
or, within 30/60 days after the beginning of the term .... or 90 days?
  
the morass of bureaucratic syrup begins to flow here, it would seem.

response 39 of 120:

Dec 23 17:22 UTC 1996

Re #35: there are two ways to resolve the inconsistencies in the sentence
"The nominees receiving the most
 >          votes will be appointed to the BOD.":