response 50 of 200:

Dec 21 04:22 UTC 1994

Re: 39  You got it exactly right, Dave.

I'm not at all surprised the election failed to make quorum but I wouldn't
attribute it to voter, rather to a membership roster that is peppered with
clients buying services and financial supporters who never intended to get
involved with Grex policy and politics.  STeve and Rane feel this is just
the way of the world of non-profits, clubs, and whatever.  It may be, but
in this particular situation we quite deliberately *caused* it to happen. 
We can't blame this one on fate. 

So now there is a rush to make it better by using the sledgehammer
approach. Andy, in #39 suggested we FIND OUT why individual voters didn't
vote.  Then armed with that information we FIX the problem using the
lightest touch and in such a way that we won't be creating more problems
down the line. 

If we fix the last policy we enacted (allow Internet for those who donate
$60 a year but not necessitate they become members) and allow folks to
give without being members (encourage an informed choice) then we'll have
room to evaluate whether we need to eliminate all quorums. And we won't be
creating new, flawed policies, to correct past flawed policies. 

Besides, all of this attention to eliminating quorums isn't going to help
squat in getting enough voters to make the next election a valid one.  Why
not focus on that first?  In the process we may stumble upon a better fix. 
 

response 52 of 200:

Dec 21 05:28 UTC 1994

        If we ammend the bylaws, we can have the election without having
to force all those who may not have intended to become members to vote.  I
agree that the long term solution might be better looked at at another
time, but for the remaining four board members to choose the new board
members seems to me to be a far worse solution than to have the majority
of those members who bother to vote choose the new board members.  I would
be perfectly willing to see this ammended to be a one shot thing, for this
election, with the agreement that we will take up the issue again when we
have more time to discuss it, but even if we do pass it as worded now we
can always ammend it later if we come up with something better.  I don't
see this as acting too fast, but rather as acting to fix an urgent problem
now that it has happened. 
        If the roof on your house starts leaking, you get it fixed right
away.  You don't just let let it leak on the assumption that, while the
ceiling may fall in, at least you will have more time to decide what the
best way to fix it is.

response 54 of 200:

Dec 21 07:10 UTC 1994

I'm with Chelsea.  Quorums are a safeguard.  I may go along w. eliminating
them for board elections (thoug[C them for board elections (though I favor a
50% quorum there), but I am strongly opposed to eliminating them for proposals
and by-law changes. If you want your Change passed, you'd better stick to board
election quorm, and not include by-law changes and proposals. Sorry Steve, I
voted for you because you were the only one who opposed expanding non-member
services willy-nilly.  This is the first election ever on Grex, of any kind,
where there was a failure to reach quorum.  I realize that as the membership
becomes broader, and only interested in using the services, it will be more
difficult to reach a quorum.  I feel that my proposal to have a screen where
members can switch back & forth between voting & non-voting status at will
would solve this problem while maintaining the safeguards of quorums.

response 56 of 200:

Dec 21 10:19 UTC 1994

Okay, you guys have changed my mind.  I will vote for a proposal that 
eliminates the quorum requirement for *regular board elections*.  
I will not, however, vote for any proposal that suggests that we drop
quorum requirements altogether.  I will try to defend my resoning if 
the necessity arises.  

response 58 of 200:

Dec 21 13:07 UTC 1994

I assumed that Steve's proposal was made as an individual member, as
well, and hope that everyone else understands it.  It got a spot in the
motd though, which I don't think would be done for all proposals, and
the motd message ties it by implication to holding a valid board
election, which I think is premature before alternatives have been
explored.

Like some others, I would also vote against a proposal that included
eliminating a quorum on policy votes.

response 60 of 200:

Dec 21 15:35 UTC 1994

We have seen that the membership is dispersed in terms of paying attention
to and/or participating in the internal working of the organization. I
agree that "right here" (in coop) is where all those that participate do
meet - frequently - but that is a small fraction of the membership. Not
attending this perpetual meeting is akin to not attending physicial
meetings in other organizations. I also agree that "we should not be
having this problem", and a lot of suggestions have been made for
mitigating it (better communications being primary among the practical
ones). Nevertheless, I'm not going to go along with Lizzie Borden
metaphors for amending the bylaws to do things in a sensible and fair
fashion. What I would go along with is exploring what "went wrong", with a
questionnaire to all members, to ascertain what is the level of member
participation in the affairs of Grex, whether steps can be taken to
increase (or facilitate) that, and even just what members think about the
vote failure. Information about all these things would help the members
and the "organization" have closer ties, but they would not change the
logic of having more better procedures. 

response 62 of 200:

Dec 21 17:40 UTC 1994

(You can vote if you've *paid* for three months' membership, whether
or not you've actually been a member for that long yet.)

response 64 of 200:

Dec 21 17:48 UTC 1994

leann - Great!  I hope to see you there.

remmers - Are you sure about that?  I thought danr had said
that you had to be entering your third month of paid
membership to vote.  But I could be misremembering.

response 66 of 200:

Dec 21 22:29 UTC 1994

Re 58:
        I don't remember whether other proposals have gotten spots in the
motd while they were being discussed, but if they didn't they should have.
I really don't see what the objection is to letting people know there's a
proposal being discussed, an that a vote may happen shortly.

response 68 of 200:

Dec 22 04:24 UTC 1994

Ja, how about fissioning the proposal into two proposals, one for
eliminating quorums for board elections, and the other for eliminating
them for proposals?

Yup, it was me who put the note in the motd.

Re votership: Anybody who has paid for 3 consecutive months of membership
can vote, even if they're only in their first month of membership.

response 70 of 200:

Dec 22 05:31 UTC 1994

Geez, I bet you're right, I never thought of that!

response 72 of 200:

Dec 22 08:31 UTC 1994

I agree with Valerie in #69.

response 74 of 200:

Dec 22 13:34 UTC 1994

Yes... but even non-voters saw the vote message in the motd.
Interesting question....

<valerie wonders just what #72 implies>  ;)