|
Grex > Coop8 > #147: Minutes of the November 20 Board Meeting |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 94 responses total. |
davel
|
|
response 50 of 94:
| 
Nov 29 01:47 UTC 1996 |
(Board members also need not be able to attend any meetings at time of
election, for what it's worth, even though consistent inability to attend is
incompatible with board membership, for what it's worth.)
|
omni
|
|
response 51 of 94:
|
Nov 29 05:11 UTC 1996 |
Since I am a paid up member for a year, I might as well nominate myself; and
since the membership was a donation, I feel obligated to return the favor by
serving on the board.
I nominate myself.
|
tsty
|
|
response 52 of 94:
|
Nov 29 05:49 UTC 1996 |
i cna't second the nomination but i welcome omni to the field anyway
and would second his nomination if i could.
and, as i have previously stated, if elected i *will* become a member
in good standing *before* the installation *and* will maintain that
membership throughout whatever term(s) are inovlved.
actually, my protest problem will probably disappear within the term.
|
scg
|
|
response 53 of 94:
|
Nov 29 06:21 UTC 1996 |
Hmm... I'd like to see Jim as a candidate, but I think the bylaws state that
nominations close November 15. :(
|
robh
|
|
response 54 of 94:
|
Nov 29 09:14 UTC 1996 |
Yep, I'm afraid the by-laws are pretty clear on that. Sorry, omni.
|
remmers
|
|
response 55 of 94:
|
Nov 29 09:40 UTC 1996 |
Re #49, 2nd point: Yeah, but a person isn't in a position to say
"I refuse to turn 18 unless I am elected to the board." :)
|
davel
|
|
response 56 of 94:
|
Nov 29 12:37 UTC 1996 |
Threaten suicide?
|
nestene
|
|
response 57 of 94:
|
Nov 29 13:17 UTC 1996 |
Perhaps we should break down and declare Robert's Rules our little rulebook?
I've read it folks; right there in the book it says you don't have to be
formal all the time. Think of it as etiquette, a standard of manners:
you don't have to be on your most proper, reserved behavior with your friends
(and anyone who shows up at a grex BOD meeting is a friend, right?), but
the rules are there if the need should arise.
|
scott
|
|
response 58 of 94:
|
Nov 29 13:46 UTC 1996 |
We've discussed RRO before, to no clear end. :/
|
rcurl
|
|
response 59 of 94:
|
Nov 29 17:26 UTC 1996 |
Perhaps it is time to discuss it again, with more evidence of beast(s)
prowling in the dark.
|
remmers
|
|
response 60 of 94:
|
Nov 29 17:46 UTC 1996 |
Would RRO help with the candidate eligibility question?
|
dpc
|
|
response 61 of 94:
|
Nov 29 18:08 UTC 1996 |
Well, Grex should do *something* about its lack of a "parliamentary
authority." Right now, how does the Grex Board know what a motion
is? What a call to order is? How to take a vote? It doesnt,
officially.
The only other "parliamentary authority" with which I am
familiar is Mason's Rules, which the Michigan Legislature uses.
It's designed for legislatures. Other than that, RRO is what there
is, ppl.
|
janc
|
|
response 62 of 94:
|
Nov 29 19:24 UTC 1996 |
In fact, we kind of operate by Roberts. We don't care to formalize the
relationship though.
|
omni
|
|
response 63 of 94:
|
Nov 29 19:35 UTC 1996 |
Sorry about that. The thought was there. Maybe next time.
|
pfv
|
|
response 64 of 94:
|
Nov 30 00:30 UTC 1996 |
Just to enjoy extending this Thread Of Oblivion...
If 7 folks need to show up, and they hold a vote, and they have
2-yes & 2-no & 3-abstain... Does that mean the issue is thrown
out the window and they all go home to dinner, or that they next
vote on what pizza toppings, size and crust to order?
This is almost fun ;-) You can jump from side to side and incite
the most AMUSING riots ;-)
|
scott
|
|
response 65 of 94:
|
Nov 30 02:44 UTC 1996 |
Well, since the motion (there has to be a motion to vote on) isn't passed (no
majority, however we've defined majority) then it doesn't pass. So the issue
is settled, unless somebody is obnoxious enough to keep moving it. In which
there'd have to be two obnoxious people, so that it gets seconded also.
|
scg
|
|
response 66 of 94:
|
Nov 30 05:00 UTC 1996 |
Right. If a motion doesn't pass, it fails.
|
tsty
|
|
response 67 of 94:
|
Nov 30 06:58 UTC 1996 |
grex sets its own standards - rro, as convenient as it may be in some
circumstances, is notthe 'be all, end all' of all organizations.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 68 of 94:
|
Nov 30 08:06 UTC 1996 |
No, its just a tool, like any programming language. Extremely useful, but
not the purpose of the exercize.
Re #62: We?
|
chelsea
|
|
response 69 of 94:
|
Nov 30 11:59 UTC 1996 |
Consider me part of janc's "we".
|
nestene
|
|
response 70 of 94:
|
Nov 30 14:06 UTC 1996 |
Perhaps we could think of RRO as system security, kept around to keep people
from hacking the bylaws.
|
davel
|
|
response 71 of 94:
|
Nov 30 14:49 UTC 1996 |
Wouldn't help. Certain people would just add RRO to their list of things to
draw on for bizarre interpretations of the rules.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 72 of 94:
|
Nov 30 20:22 UTC 1996 |
#62...the board doesnt care to formalize its relationship with RRO?
That sounds very much like many of you like RRO in general but
dont wish to live with certain parts of it. So like other boards
with similar feelings, you wish to have your cake and eat it too.
The fact is that the bylaws are five years old. I'm sure they weren't
written as thebe all and end all of what grex ever runs itself by. I
think it would be healthy to simply schedule a complete revision/updating
of the bylaws in the next few months. Wouldnt take long to do, would take
care of the vagueness in much of the current wording, and it would make
newer users feel more a part of the process.
As much as grex changes, updating the bylaws every few years is probably a
reasonable and good thing to do. Simply draw up the proposed changes and
have a special member meeting ( a grex constitutional convention if you
will), and those proposals that get 3/4 of the member vote of the members
at the meeting, the changes pass .etc
|
remmers
|
|
response 73 of 94:
|
Nov 30 23:54 UTC 1996 |
Can't do it that way, according to the bylaws. :)
|
arthurp
|
|
response 74 of 94:
|
Dec 1 04:46 UTC 1996 |
And while we're at it let's petition the Feds to throw out The Constitution.
That bugger is over 200 years old. I'm sure that when they wrote it they
didn't mean it to be the be all and end all of how the country would run.
It wouldn't be to big a deal to rewrite it every ten years in conjunction with
the census.
|