|
Grex > Coop6 > #53: Proposal to change the corporation's bylaws (no board election quorums) | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 200 responses total. |
popcorn
|
|
response 25 of 200:
| 
Dec 18 23:52 UTC 1994 |
I'm in favor of just nuking (or reducing) quorums. No acknowledgements.
Let people vote or not, as they choose, without electronically hassling
anyone.
|
steve
|
|
response 26 of 200:
|
Dec 19 01:10 UTC 1994 |
Agreed, Valerie.
|
kentn
|
|
response 27 of 200:
|
Dec 19 02:36 UTC 1994 |
Nuke the quorums, yes. Force people to vote, never.
|
srw
|
|
response 28 of 200:
|
Dec 19 07:39 UTC 1994 |
OK. I'm getting the drift. I was against acknowledgments myself, but I
had to test the waters to determine which track was likely to do best
in a vote. Remember, we will need a 3/4 majority of the voters to pass these
changes to the bylaws. We cannot afford to have them many people vote against
these changes.
|
nephi
|
|
response 29 of 200:
|
Dec 19 15:02 UTC 1994 |
Okay, here's my take on the situation.
I favor abstentions, but feel that after awhile we will end up not making
quorum again because most of the people that don't want to bother
themselves with voting will probably not bother themselves with
abstaining, either. I think that as a first step, we should give this a
try because there is no point in being drastic when we can always resort
to other ideas if this fails.
If we still fail to maintain a quorum, then I think that we could program
a page to appear on the member's screen before he reaches his shell on
the first time he logs on during the election. This would announce
the dates of the election, tell how to run the vote program, and perhaps
point to the discussion of the election in coop. It would also ask if the
member wished to acknowledge that he had seen the screen. If he answered
yes, then he would be counted as present. If he answered no, then he
wouldn't. In either case, he would not see the screen again until the next
election. I also think that if he answered no, but later decided to vote,
his running the vote program would automatically count him as present. I
think that this method virtually ensures that we will have quorum for our
elections. I also think that it will make sure that people will not think
that they *have* to vote, thereby eliminating any dartboard decision
making that we may have now.
|
andyv
|
|
response 30 of 200:
|
Dec 19 18:43 UTC 1994 |
I agree with this idea too. I don't think it would be considered a hassle
by members. It is just using the technology at hand to achieve an equitable
end. I hope the people here don't feel imposed upon when they get such
a message. I would like it because lots of days are not much different than
others so at times I tend to become forgetful. If I could, I would vote
in all elections with my computer. Besides, sometimes on computer I get
into a rut where I ruch in do the minimum and then get out for days on
end.[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[DOOps, newbieitis I guess, sorry ;-) How
many people do we have to have vote to make the change?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 31 of 200:
|
Dec 19 19:00 UTC 1994 |
I was asked by a new user of menu how to read these items in "coop"
(he got the numbers OK, even if the motd flew by). Herre is the beginning
of the exchange:
Hi, can I help wyhoue?r
eo
is coop
Sorry, say again, and wait for my "o", for "over", before you write.
o
where is coop to read
o
It is a conference. What login "shell" are you using?
o
normal
o
Hmmm...we don't have one by that name. When you logged in, you had
to choose from among "menu", "lynx", "bbs", "unix - and several flavors
of that" - do you recall? I ask because how you get to a Conference
depends on where you are!
o
i came on from mlink lynx ?
I found he is using "menu", directed him to B), and gave him directions
to here. The import of this, however, is that it is difficult for newusers
using menu to even find the Conferences, because what is said in B) is
not self explanatory. I don't know if this user is a member, but he could
have been, and prevented from voting in the election, because there are
no absolutely clear guides on how to get to the polling place!
|
popcorn
|
|
response 32 of 200:
|
Dec 19 19:40 UTC 1994 |
The motd said "type vote to vote, or !vote from a menu, lynx, or
picospan". What wording would you prefer?
|
kentn
|
|
response 33 of 200:
|
Dec 19 21:01 UTC 1994 |
By-law changes aren't usually a frequent event in most organizations.
If we're going to make a change, let's make one that we don't have to
re-do later. In other words, remove the quorum requirements totally.
Also, I do not even want to acknowledge that I don't want to
acknowledge having seen the vote message. I don't want to be hassled
with one more screen of information when I log in and I certainly
do not want to have to enter an answer. Send me e-mail, fine. Don't
mess with my login and mind yer own beeswax about my state of voting
information.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 34 of 200:
|
Dec 19 21:41 UTC 1994 |
Please keep in mind that the quorum requirement in the bylaws does not
exist in a vacuum. Example: quorum requirements facilitate as any user
being able to call any issue to a vote without the system being threatened
by nuisance votes. And allowing any user to start a discussion evolving
into a policy vote is a wonderful feature that Grex should be proud to
foster.
But I'd suspect, without some quorum requirement, it's probably
not long for this life. There are other, similar issues to be
considered.
The bylaws, as written, were never intended to be the end-all
Grex Bible. Some changes are needed. But what I see happening here
is policy with far-reaching ramifications being proposed in a panic.
Couldn't we please just focus on getting a Board elected and then
calmly, in a well-considered manner, address changes to the bylaws?
|
steve
|
|
response 35 of 200:
|
Dec 19 23:49 UTC 1994 |
Mary, can you show me an organiztion around town that *doesn't* have
problems getting enough people together for a quorum for its elections?
If it were the case that lots of other places had no troubles getting
the voter participation it needed in elections, I'd be thinking that Grex
is doing something wrong. But it isn't, at least in terms of having
problems with quorums.
I don't think that getting rid of quorums is a proposed move made
in the midst of a panic--it's facing hard facts after they've slapped
us in the head. I see that as a difference.
I'm also confused about your statement about the quorum as being
a form of protection from niusance voting. As I see it, regardless of
quorums or not we always have the potential of someone bringing something
'odd/bad' up for a vote. If 50% of the vote is for something, then a) most
people didn't care, b) the opposing side was sleeping, c) it might be a
worthy thing to try out. After all, the 'other' side could always propose
to take things back to their previous state if the initial change was
detrimental to the system.
Basically, I trust Grex folks to not go for insane policies. We haven't
yet, in 3.4 years of existence.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 36 of 200:
|
Dec 20 07:32 UTC 1994 |
Some assiduous searching, and a little dozing along the way, found State
MCL 450.2515. "Filling of vacancies; increase in number of directors;
special meeting when no directors in office." The first is rrelevant:
Sec. 515 (1) Unless the right to fill vacancies is reserved to the
shareholders or members or otherwise provided by the articles of
incorporation or bylaws, a vacancy occurring in the board may be filled
by the affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining directors
though less than a quorum of the board.
Hence, regardless of the outcome of the quorum bylaw change vote,
the four continuing directors can fill the three vacancies in 1995.
That would, of course, not be by membership vote, but the board could
function - and then we'd do it again for 1996, and the members would
never again elect directors 8-o. Therefore we should work for
the elimination of all voting quorums, as suggested by RRO for an
organization like Grex, but at least we don't have to panic in the
meantime - the bills can be authorized to be paid.
|
nephi
|
|
response 37 of 200:
|
Dec 20 09:09 UTC 1994 |
Re 33:
What do you mean that you don't want to be hassled by the screen?
Is pushing two buttons too much for you (n, and <cr>)? It would take
more effort for you to read mail about it and then have to delete it.
I also don't know what you mean about people keeping tabs on your
voting status. If you say 'yes', then you are counted as present for
the quorum. If you say 'no', you are not counted at all. This
screen would only be based on the fact that you are in the group,
members. There is no additional keeping of tabs involved. Please
explain further.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 38 of 200:
|
Dec 20 13:22 UTC 1994 |
Would it make sense to create an *optional* program that tests to see if
there's a vote in progress, and, if there is, displays a note on a user's
screen? Then, for people who want to be notified, they would run this
program from their .login or .profile file. For people who didn't want to
be notified, they'd simply not run it. Run this way, it wouldn't count
toward any official system count of abstentions, but it might satisfy
the people (if there are any?) who want such a program.
|
davel
|
|
response 39 of 200:
|
Dec 20 16:05 UTC 1994 |
Re 35: STeve, I think I know what Mary means about quorums as a protection
against nuisance proposals, & if so I agree wholeheartedly. If people
propose witless things, I can usually ignore them, secure in the knowledge
that they won't achieve a majority of a quorum. But if we drop quorums,
I'm forced to consider having to vote because they might get 3 out of 5
people who bother to vote. Personally, I view calls to vote on anything
and everything someone proposes a real nuisance - but I agree with Mary that
the arrangement that any member can initiate proposals is a really neat
feature. Quorums, fairly high ones, make it practical to have this without
the nuisance of having to vote endlessly.
Mary, if you're thinking something else, I'd like to hear it, but I suspect
that's it.
|
remmers
|
|
response 40 of 200:
|
Dec 20 16:17 UTC 1994 |
I've mostly stayed out of this, but I'd like to make a general comment
on this proposal and the rationale given in response #1, in particular
Steve's statement "I think it is essential for us to pass the change
to section 4d so that Cyberspace Communications may duly elect a board
of directors."
I think things are a bit out of order here. Steve has a right to his
opinion and, as a member of Grex, to make a proposal for consideration
by the membership. But the validity of the rationale I quoted above
isn't obvious to me, and in any case, there are seven board members
still in office, each one of them is an elected representative of the
members, and Steve is the chair of this group. It would have been
appropriate for him to have acted as a facilitator to discussion, and
in particular to have involved the board and the users in examining
alternatives and finding a solution. Instead, he unilaterally set in
motion his own preferred solution, and the scheduled board meeting
almost comes as an afterthought.
|
tsty
|
|
response 41 of 200:
|
Dec 20 16:48 UTC 1994 |
At least that prcedure initiates (facilitates) discussion along
a specific line first, with alternatives as they arise, if they
arise. I appreaciate that sort of leadership.
|
kentn
|
|
response 42 of 200:
|
Dec 20 17:21 UTC 1994 |
Re 37: I'm tired of explaining my position, but I'll try once more.
Making a forced acknowledgement vs. reading an e-mail message is
the difference between someone pounding on my front door yelling
"You've got to tell me whether or not you know a vote is in progress!!!"
and me walking calmly to my mailbox and reading a postcard announcing
the election. I prefer the latter. It's not invasive or totally
obnoxious.
If you can't understand the difference, tough. If *I* have your
position forced upon me, I *will* resign and cease support of Grex,
as much as it would pain me to do so. Grex very much revolves around
philosophical issues as well as practical issues. Either can tick
people off enough to quit.
|
gerund
|
|
response 43 of 200:
|
Dec 20 17:50 UTC 1994 |
sigh
|
andyv
|
|
response 44 of 200:
|
Dec 20 18:07 UTC 1994 |
Could we reach a compramise in the wording by stating a certain percentage
(low of course but not rediculous) of the Grex membership will constitute
a quorom. does 20% sound too low?
As far as people threatening to pick up and leave over something like this,
I wouldn't be concerned. Those people should contribute their $ if they
wqant but not renew their membership.
Since there seems to be a method to deal with this situation already on
the books (not surprising since Grex certqinly isn't the first to go through
this) we shouldn't panic, but start asking individuals why they didn't vote.
Has anyone tried to take a poll (possibly as bad as an election or worse)?
I could learn lots from a poll. I didn't realize there would be people
upset with alterations of their daily routine and be so antagonistic toward
participation.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 45 of 200:
|
Dec 20 20:12 UTC 1994 |
You've seen such apathy in elections all around you, andyv.
I favor eliminating quorums, as I don't see that they help anything.
Anyone can propose a motion, and it must go through the whole voting
procedure. I think the principle is to defeat a motion by *voting* it
down, not *quoruming* it down, in a democratic society. In fact, it seems
bizarre to have a system in place to defeat a bad motion by combining the
apathetic no-shows with the intentional no-shows. That gives the
intentional no-shows an unfair advantage - like multiple votes. When
instead there is a good motion being considered, quorum supporters wont be
so happy that there are no-shows arrayed against the issue (such as
happened here in just conducting an election).
While this issue has arisen because of the failure of an election quorum
at this junction, quorums will have to be eliminated eventually, in my
opinion, as the unfairness and inefficiency of them will come up again and
again. I don't particularly tie my support for eliminating quorums to this
event. I was opposed to them before this ever happened, but I was a little
startled by the enormous growth of an apathetic membership. (Incidentally,
"apathetic" isn't a condemnation - it just recognizes that different
people care about different things, and some care more about using
Grex, than managing it.)
|
andyv
|
|
response 46 of 200:
|
Dec 21 02:11 UTC 1994 |
I am convinced that no quorum is necessary for Grex. Ohter things are much
more important to get on to here now.
By the way, where is the list of members located?
|
kentn
|
|
response 47 of 200:
|
Dec 21 02:17 UTC 1994 |
The !members command used to do that, but apparently it's broken.
|
srw
|
|
response 48 of 200:
|
Dec 21 04:07 UTC 1994 |
In response to John Remmers's #40:
At the time I made this proposal the board had not decided to meet,
and I didn't know it would be possible to do so until we went through
the email process of finding a date we could agree to. I had no guarantee
that there would even be a board meeting, in fact.
Furthermore, while I have set in motion my preferred solution, this process
requires that discussion take place and time pass. This is now happpening
and will continue to do so while we are having our board meeting.
The board will still have the first opportunity to make decisions
regarding our future, not the members by virtue of this proposal.
The members will, in fact, know the full outcome of our meeting by
the time that they vote on this proposal.
I plan to facilitate the discussion of alternatives at the board meeting
which is now scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday, 21 December, at 7PM
in the STate Street Amer's Deli (downstairs).
I regret if my actions on this proposal offended you or others,
but I felt it was necessary to move quickly in light of the waiting period,
so that a valid board election can be held as early as possible.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 49 of 200:
|
Dec 21 04:18 UTC 1994 |
Hm. I took srw's entry of this proposal as an action as an individual
member of Grex, not an action as the chair of the board.
Also, I think it makes sense to have this proposal under discussion by
the time the board meets, so the board has plenty of input from plenty
of users by the time tomorrow's meeting occurs.
Re 46: Type "!menumore /etc/groups" and look for the line that starts with
"members" to see the membership list. Voting members are listed on the
line that starts with "voters". Lines are "continued" onto the next line
if they end with a backslash.
Re people who didn't vote: Of the four people I know of who didn't vote,
one didn't know about the election (but should have), one forgot about the
election until it was too late to vote, one didn't vote because of a
conflict of interest with M-Net (or something like that?), and one didn't
vote out of security concerns about the ballot box.
|