response 25 of 94:

Nov 26 18:04 UTC 1996

> ... I dont see ...

Richard, that's obvious!  ;-)

response 27 of 94:

Nov 26 19:37 UTC 1996

I supppose everyone just loves this rambling, ineffectual discussion. It
would save a lot of hot air if the bylaws were revised to state that RRO
as revised would be the parliamentary authority, as Mary suggested in #16. 
;-]

response 29 of 94:

Nov 26 22:14 UTC 1996

Richard.  You are simply wrong about the abstain thing.  It's time to stop.

response 31 of 94:

Nov 26 22:48 UTC 1996

Please don't confuse my participating in a discussion about
how RRO define abstentions as anything more than a discussion
about how RRO define abstentions.

;-)

response 33 of 94:

Nov 27 01:59 UTC 1996

I'm surprised Grex doesn't have a "parliamentary authority."  It can
be a dangerous omission, as this discussion shows.  RRO is, in practice,
the only parliamentary authority boards adopt.  It solves the "abstention"
question neatly without all the haggling about who intended what, or
what about free speech, or where all the flowers have gone.

response 35 of 94:

Nov 27 06:17 UTC 1996

> I wish I could have been at the last Board meeting just to see how the
> logic on this vote evolved.  How did three people all interpret that
> "members of Grex"  are not the same as "Grex members".  Guess you had to
> be there.  ;-)
>
> Now we have set policy that makes no sense whatsoever.
 
Mary, it was indeed an interesting discussion; a rare reprieve from
Grex's traditional unanimous votes :-).  But to answer your question,
the three people made no distinction between "members of Grex," "Grex
members," or "members of Cyberspace Communications."  The key is that
the bylaws never say you have to be a member of anything to nominate,
accept a nomination, or run for the board.  In fact, for all the
specificity of the bylaws, I think a fork could nominate a spoon for
the board.  (In fact, if the nominations weren't closed, I might
nominate a spoon myself, just for kicks :-).  They merely say that
board members are members of Grex.  I think all the board members
agreed that a non-member who wins an election has to become a Grex
member to actually serve on the board, and most or all would prefer
the bylaws be spelled out more explicitly, but that wasn't an option
at the time.
 
The board was forced to make an arbitrary ruling on a very ambiguous
issue.  It had to be made before the election.  I think they tried
to interpret the bylaws as best they could, setting aside their own
policy preferences, which I think was the right way to go.

response 37 of 94:

Nov 27 13:09 UTC 1996

Had I been on the Board I would have suggested no
action on the Bylaws been taken until they could
be ammended by the members.  Until then current 
policy would simply extend past policy.

Membership is necessary to be on the Board and to vote
for the Board.  It's not a leap of faith to see
candidates as members too.

Now we need a Bylaws ammendment to get back
to a sane policy.

response 39 of 94:

Nov 27 16:11 UTC 1996

Hey, the point of the board making a decision on this was so that we could
stop discussing it and go back to something more productive.  This is clearly
Not Happening.  <sigh>

At this rate, Richard *will* have us all following RRO in the not too distant
future.

response 41 of 94:

Nov 27 18:59 UTC 1996

Jan, I'm wrong about abstentions if RRO is right.  I dont agree 
with RRO on this point, and the Bylaws dont specifically defer to 
RRO in cases of parlimentary procedures.  So my opinion is as 
right as anyone else's.

If you voted in the last election and left the president section 
blank, didnt vote at all for President, but voted in other races, 
you still voted.  You are still part of the overrall vote total.  
So Clinton may not have gotten 50% of the total vote because 
3,000 people decided not to make a choice in the Presidential 
race.  Percentages are based on number of ballots cast.  If a 
board member is at a meeting and votes to "abstain", he has 
participated in the vote and made his/her voice heard.  "Abstain" 
is like "other" or "no opinion".  It is an option.  A way to 
vote.

So I think RRO is wrong.  If you are at a meeting and choose to 
abstain, you have participated.  It is not like missing the 
meeting entirely.  It should count toward the vote total.

response 43 of 94:

Nov 27 20:35 UTC 1996

I'm saying abstains DO count toward quorum, so that the 
non-member vote should have failed because only three of the seven
members, all of whom participated in the meeting, voted for it.

The difference is that the apparent standard is that quorum is
only necessary to have a meeting, but not to have a vote.
That to me is not logical.  You shouldnt have lower standards on
having votes than on having meetings.

response 45 of 94:

Nov 27 23:19 UTC 1996

Re: #36  I'm a candidate for the Grex Board of Directors
exactly because I feel it would be unfair to be critical
of a job being done by volunteers unless I was willing
to volunteer for the same duties.

The idea of actually *serving* a term is something
else all together.  I'm not too worried. ;-)

response 47 of 94:

Nov 28 13:26 UTC 1996

What do you mean, "if he chooses to accept it"?

response 49 of 94:

Nov 28 18:16 UTC 1996

Well, I don't think the board will automatically take the widest possible
definition on everything.  There were a few other factors in this one:

  - We don't believe many members will vote for users who aren't members.
    This is an instance where trusting the users is a viable option.

  - Board members have to be 18 years old, but not until they actually take
    office.  They can be nominated before they are 18.  Thus there is at
    least some precedent for requirements not being met until you take
    office, and this interpretation is not entirely unjustified.