|
Grex > Coop13 > #40: Proposed bylaw amendment to close the quorum gap | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 91 responses total. |
dpc
|
|
response 60 of 91:
| 
Dec 16 22:00 UTC 2003 |
I oppose this bylaw change because I oppose all participation requirements
in elections. We were right to remove the requirement earlier.
|
carson
|
|
response 61 of 91:
|
Dec 17 14:01 UTC 2003 |
(there's a difference between requiring members to vote and requiring
matters before the body to be compelling enough to worth deciding. I
would not be surprised if there were people who oppose quorums because
it makes their vote more important and makes it possible for certain
"pet projects" to pass through inertia.)
(speaking of which, I don't recall getting any announcement about the
board election outside of the MOTD posting.)
|
gull
|
|
response 62 of 91:
|
Dec 17 14:12 UTC 2003 |
Where else would it be announced? It was in the MOTD (which, in theory,
everyone sees) and in Co-op. Were you hoping for a personal phone call? ;>
|
carson
|
|
response 63 of 91:
|
Dec 17 14:16 UTC 2003 |
(e-mail? letter? FWIW, the only reason I see the MOTD is because
I specifically set-up my account to re-display it after Grex redraws
my screen after login. should we limit voting on Grex to the technically
savvy?)
(...although I certainly wouldn't have frowned on a phone call, I
personally didn't need one.) ;)
|
glenda
|
|
response 64 of 91:
|
Dec 17 14:19 UTC 2003 |
It was in the announcement item in Agora, with several reminders.
|
remmers
|
|
response 65 of 91:
|
Dec 17 15:05 UTC 2003 |
Re #61: On any given issue, wouldn't reduced participation increase
the importance of the votes both of those for and those against? Seems
to balance out.
|
davel
|
|
response 66 of 91:
|
Dec 17 15:14 UTC 2003 |
Um, no. Not if those supporting one side tend, on the whole, to be much less
apathetic than those supporting the other. Consider the conventional
statement that low turnouts (in US elections generally) tend to favor
Republicans.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 67 of 91:
|
Dec 17 15:17 UTC 2003 |
Re: #63: I think that at the time an election "opens", an e-mail should be
sent to grex members, as a reminder, since their vote is the one that counts.
|
aruba
|
|
response 68 of 91:
|
Dec 17 15:39 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, I kind of think that's a good idea too.
|
remmers
|
|
response 69 of 91:
|
Dec 17 18:15 UTC 2003 |
I agree, and will do that next time. Probably two emails, one at the
start of nominations, the second at the start of the election.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 70 of 91:
|
Dec 17 19:51 UTC 2003 |
Perhaps one at the start of the election and one on the final day
instead?
|
carson
|
|
response 71 of 91:
|
Dec 17 19:52 UTC 2003 |
(I also think an e-mail reminder is a good idea.)
re #46: (I want to make sure that I understand your point correctly:
the Sailing Club has a quorum, has more than twice the number
of members as Grex, AND has higher dues [which, by implication,
means a larger budget]? and the only downside is that, once a
year, about a dozen people who care about the Club have to wait
for the other dozen who only sort of care to show up?)
(that sounds to me like a strong data point in favor of having
some sort of quorum. what do you think?)
|
carson
|
|
response 72 of 91:
|
Dec 17 19:52 UTC 2003 |
<bhelliom slipped>
|
jp2
|
|
response 73 of 91:
|
Dec 17 19:53 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 74 of 91:
|
Dec 17 20:36 UTC 2003 |
Also, I'd like to see the emails sent in a way which conforms to the
current limits in order to reduce the impact on Grex, unless we
first implement a policy change excepting this specific (or like)
incidence(s) from the existing policy.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 75 of 91:
|
Dec 17 22:16 UTC 2003 |
carson, my point was that despite a much higher investment in the Sailing
Club, very, very few members are interested in its governance.
The quorum is 10 + (N-20)/7 where N is the number of voting members.
|
willcome
|
|
response 76 of 91:
|
Dec 17 23:23 UTC 2003 |
IS THERE ANY ESCAPE FROM MAAATThc.
|
jp2
|
|
response 77 of 91:
|
Dec 18 00:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
carson
|
|
response 78 of 91:
|
Dec 18 04:53 UTC 2003 |
re #75: (I dunno. it seems to me that there's a higher proportion of
interested Sailing Club members than there are Grex members.
and I have to keep reminding myself that this discussion was
over seven years ago and that I'm flagellating a terminated
equine.)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 79 of 91:
|
Dec 18 04:57 UTC 2003 |
Actually, there is a higher proportion of interested Grex members: Grex
regularly gets twenty to thirty voters, the Sailing Club has had trouble
getting 12.
|
gull
|
|
response 80 of 91:
|
Dec 18 14:37 UTC 2003 |
I've always thought it's reasonable to assume that if people don't vote,
they don't care and would be happy with either option.
|
carson
|
|
response 81 of 91:
|
Dec 18 14:39 UTC 2003 |
(the Sailing Club only has 34 voting members? Joe, check your math
again.)
|
carson
|
|
response 82 of 91:
|
Dec 18 14:40 UTC 2003 |
(gull slipped in. David, I wouldn't disagree with your first
conclusion.)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 83 of 91:
|
Dec 18 20:46 UTC 2003 |
If the Sailing Club has 100 members, the quorum is 21; half that (to elect
officers) is 11. Grex has fewer than 100 members, but always has at least
20 people vote. This time, the voting proportion was more than half. The
last time I can remember the Sailing Club having any where near half its
members show up is 1995, when we were deciding on the boats for a new fleet:
470s or JY15s. Usually, the Sailing Club is doing good to get a fifth of its
members to vote.
|
davel
|
|
response 84 of 91:
|
Dec 19 02:33 UTC 2003 |
It's only fair to say that the sailing club probably doesn't offer its members
a week in which they may show up & vote at their convenience & without their
having to leave home. That might or might not actually make much difference.
|