response 63 of 95:

Jun 8 14:43 UTC 1999

I'm sorry - NO only means that the voters don't want *that* motion - it
does not mean they want something else, unless that something else is
spelled out. It is very bad procedure to put just one unspecified
interpretation on a NO vote on the motion.

I don't understand Jan's reluctance to word a motion that is offered in
order to give the membership an opportunity to countermand the board's
decision. It makes one think that all he wants are "yes members". 

It is quite proper and often necessary for a person strongly in favor
of an action to offer a motion exactly opposite to that, especially when
this is the only way to provide an alternative. These are procedures
to faciliate democratic processes. The only reason that most motions
are made by people that favor some action is because that's what they
want. 

So, what's the purpose of Jan's motion, which just repeats what the board
has already decided, and is therefore redundant? Is it to determine whether
or not that is what the members really want? If it is, the best procedure
is to give them a choice - a chance to vote against the action. 

This is getting to be too wordy.... I will enter a motion to discontinue
particpation in the suit. 

response 65 of 95:

Jun 8 19:28 UTC 1999

Rane, I don't want to sponsor a motion to drop the suit because I don't want
to be perceived as supporting such an action.  The notion that I should make
a motion and then campaign against it and vote against it is just too weird
for me.

response 67 of 95:

Jun 8 19:40 UTC 1999

A REFERENDUM on the continued participation of Cyberspace Communications, Inc. in the lawsuit aimed at overturning Michigan Public Act 33 of 1999: A vote of "YES" shall be construed as supporting continued participation, while a vote of "NO" shall be construed as supporting withdrawal from the lawsuit described herein.

response 69 of 95:

Jun 8 20:02 UTC 1999

The Grex bylaws have no provisions for referenda - only for motions.

I don't have any difficulty in making motions with which I disagree, so
have entered item 103 as a motion to reverse the board vote. Motions are
just tools for accomplishing things. It usually happens that when one has
what one thinks is a good idea, one poses it as a motion - and one
naturally agrees with it. However motions have other uses, such as
offering an alternative. Grex is peculiar in having two bodies, both of
which can adopt valid acts of the Corporation. It is useless both to adopt
the same motion, so the simplest way to obtain the opinion of the members
after a vote of the board is to move the opposite. 

response 71 of 95:

Jun 9 16:50 UTC 1999

I correct myself: I have come to realize that a referendum is a vote by a
membership (or constituency) to initiate or modify a law otherwise adopted
by a legislative body. Therefore the bylaw provision for membership
initiation and adoption of acts IS the referendum power. However the form
of an initiative must still be as a motion to adopt some policy or course
of action, and a NO vote still means only that the proposal fails. 

The problem with a vote such as in #67 is that it means that one of only
two possible actions, A or B, will result, but NEITHER may be what voters
want. No motion can force a group to adopt either action A or action B,
but neither no other action or no action at all. The A and B in #67 are
not the only possible actions that could be proposed. 

response 73 of 95:

Jun 9 19:07 UTC 1999

We could put a time limit on our participation; we could specify how our
involvement is publicized; we could have had other modifiers on our
involvement. We didn't, but we COULD - so there are other alternatives. 

I'd like to know what authority you draw on to say what form the
referendum must take, and why you think that Grex is bound by that
authority. 

I could quote custom, conventional practices in non-profits, RRoO, but of
course you will reject all of these as not binding Grex. Are you saying
only *your* rules bind Grex? 

I don't know if I have to say this or not, but I have absolutely no
animosity, axe to grind, wish to upset anyone, or hidden motive, in
offering what I believe is a better motion than Jan's to show what the
wishes of the membership are. There is absolutely no reason, either, why
they both cannot go forward, if you so wish. At least what I perceive
to be the minority will be given the chance to vote in favor of what they
believe, given that the board majority has already spoken.

response 75 of 95:

Jun 10 15:43 UTC 1999

It seems to me that there is, in general, strong support going forward
with this vote.

I'll accept the wording Eric gave in response #67 of this item.

response 77 of 95:

Jun 10 21:22 UTC 1999

Okay, the vote program is now set up. To run it, type 'vote' at
a Unix shell prompt or '!vote' at any other prompt. The on-screen
instructions are pretty clear, I think. You can vote as many times
as you want; any new vote erases your previous one. Polls close at
the end of the day (EDT) on Sunday June 20.

You have to have a telnet or direct-dial connection to Grex in order
to vote. I'm hoping to have a web interface for voting set up in the
next few days, just as there is for board elections. Haven't had
time to do it yet, and I'll be out of town over the weekend, so it'll
me the middle of next week at the earliest.

response 79 of 95:

Jun 11 14:05 UTC 1999

I voted yes.

response 81 of 95:

Jun 12 04:59 UTC 1999

rane, feel free to reenfranchise yourself, by whatever means you think will
accomplish that.  of course, i'm assuming that those means be harmless,
because i do not believe your goal to be causing harm in reenfranchising
yourself.  that was a really bad way of sying what i was trying to say...

response 83 of 95:

Jun 21 14:45 UTC 1999

VOTE RESULTS:

38 out of 87 eligible members voted. Results:

    YES:   36
    NO:     2

The proposal passed, and the membership has voted to endorse
Grex's participation in the lawsuit.

The (unofficial) non-member totals:  183 non-members voted,
with 167 voting yes and 16 voting no.

response 85 of 95:

Jun 21 21:33 UTC 1999

yeah but only 43% of members voted in this election-- there's an
argument to be made that a vote should not be considered "passed"
unless a majority of the membership participated in the vote.  of course
although many organizations have such a rule, the federal government does
not.

response 87 of 95:

Jun 22 22:44 UTC 1999

so aruba, if only say 3 members voted in a vote, and the measure passed
two to one, it should pass?  at what point do you decide that a
represntative vote hasnt taken place?