response 76 of 200:

Dec 22 22:05 UTC 1994

It would be only fair to announce at least that the proposal is in
discussion, and a vote MAY begin on about 1 January. In any case, we
want to keep directing members to Coop for the discussion.

response 78 of 200:

Dec 23 07:44 UTC 1994

Nothing in the bylaws forbids one person entering multiple motions, or for
that matter multiple people entering any number of motions simultaneously.
I would deem dividing a question after one motion is entered is also a
perfectly ordinary thing to do to a motion, within the power of the
proposer to submit a "final version". The power of the voting program to
manage multiple questions is an issue, but since multiple votes are
permitted by the bylaws, they must be accomodated by the voting procedure. 

response 80 of 200:

Dec 23 16:31 UTC 1994

I am very uncomfortable with all of this.  Maybe it's a waste of breath
for me to respond further, but I feel strongly and will give it another
shot.  This is going to be long; I hope folks bear with me.

Regarding Steve's role as the proposer of this item:  The board
met two days ago to consider means to resolve the failure of the board
election to reach quorum.  Before that, Steve had donned his member hat
to make this proposal, then at the meeting sponsored a motion that set
the timing of a new election so as to dovetail with the expected voting
period on the proposal.  ("Expected" because there's no requirement
that voting start immediately after the two-week discussion period, and
historically a few days grace has been allowed for the proposer to come
up with a final wording.)  I wish that Steve had put his role as
discussion facilitator and moderator ahead of his prerogatives as a
member.  Perhaps the board would have decided to do the same thing
anyway, but this proposal definitely stacked the deck.  I abstained
from voting on the motion because of my dissatisfaction with the
process.

At least, to judge from #77, Steve has reconsidered bundling other
matters together with this proposal that were not related to the
immediate issue of getting a valid board constituted.  Good, as the
bundling would definitely have been unfair.  But I'm disappointed that
it was even considered in the first place.  When legislators add things
like that to a bill, it's usually to get them through on the bill's
coattails, and they're called "riders".  I've always believed that
riders are a shoddy political practice.

I had hoped we could avoid on Grex this manipulative style of politics.
I am sorry to have to characterize it so bluntly, but I think that's
what it is.

Regarding splitting the proposal into two:  I see some problems with
that.  It's not clear then what we should have been talking about in
this item then.  I haven't even addressed here the merits of quorums in
member proposal votes, because I felt that the only justification for
the timing of the proposal was to facilitate a board election, and that
other issues didn't even belong in it.  Now it would appear, with only
a week of the discussion period left, we're considering shifting the
ground, making a separate proposal, and should be talking about the
merits.  Even if it were technically legal within the bylaws to make
two simultaneous proposals from a single discussion item, I think it's
a bad way to do business in this instance.

If the members truly want quorums eliminated from policy votes, they
will get it.  But it is a separate issue from board election quorums.
My strong preference would be that I get to make my arguments against
it, and that others get the chance to make their arguments for or
against, *after* the board election business has been resolved, in an
atmosphere that is hopefully calmer and more settled than that which
prevails now.  If fairness is a concern, then *that* would be the
fairest thing.

response 82 of 200:

Dec 24 03:31 UTC 1994

I've been thinking about John's #80.  Maybe it's because I agreed with a lot
of the things Steve Weiss was saying, but I would have been sorry to see him
limit himself to a role as only a facilitator and not bring up his own views
during the meeting.  I didn't feel that he was forcing the issue to his own
viewpoint.  True, he shared his views, but it seemed to me that he made an
effort to let everybody at that meeting be heard, whatever their viewpoint.

(But I recognize that it's a lot easier to feel that way when you agree with
the outcome of the discussion, which, in this case, I did.)

response 84 of 200:

Dec 24 07:02 UTC 1994

RRO makes an interesting distinction between procedures on a "large" board
and a "small" board ("not more than about a dozen members"). Most of my
experience has been with the former, so I'm learning board procedures for
small boards, on Grex. For "small" boards, RRO has quite a few
suggestions, but one relevant one is "The chairman can speak in discussion
without rising or leaving the chair; and, subject to rule or custom within
the particular board (which should be uniformly followed regardless of how
many members are present), he usually can make motions and usually votes
on all questions." There is no reason why a board chairman can't be 100%
fair and evenhanded in ensuring that everyone is heard and all viewpoints
are aired, even if he/she has an opinion, and votes. In fact, the chair's
ability to do those things should be a criterion for his/her selection. 

The "rule or custom" that I have observed on the Grex board, is that
the chair does make motions, discusses and votes. 

response 86 of 200:

Dec 24 21:22 UTC 1994

Hm.  I'm inclined to say that two weeks of discussion is two weeks of
discussion, whenever it takes place.  People are doing an OK job of
looking at many sides of the quorums question -- it's not getting slighted
just because it came up suddenly.

Do other people feel that there are aspects of the quorums question that
aren't getting enough attention?  If so, please raise them for discussion!!

response 88 of 200:

Dec 25 00:40 UTC 1994

I thought the discussion entered her was for a single proposal, eliminating
quorums for board elections.  

How and when to get opinions should be an executive decision made soon.  
Is there anyone with executive powers here?  If not, let's put a questionaire
together in another discussion asap.

response 90 of 200:

Dec 25 14:31 UTC 1994

Consensus is fine for some things, bnut it often moves slower than snail
mail.  A few people would like some info in order to make better decisions
(I mean discussion ;-).  I'm going to start a discussion which will have a
goal of putting together a short list of questions to ask the membership.

response 92 of 200:

Dec 25 20:24 UTC 1994

The suggestion for a questionnaire to ask the membership about this matter
suggests a deep failure in the membership governance of Grex. *This* item
is the "questionnaire": it is where all members can express their opinions
and reasons for them, and others can discuss the issues raised, in order
to become better informed and hence a better electorate. 

Another possible use of a questionnaire, even assuming all members are
participating here, is to get a "straw vote" on the issues. I dislike
"straw votes", except for some very narrowly defined purpose (such as
agreeing to limit debate, because no one is opposed-to/in-favor-of a
motion (which can usually be detected by other means). What does a "straw
vote" do other than potentially tip someone to vote with the apparent
majority, for no otherwise good reason? 

As far as the rules (bylaws) go, a member can enter any number of motions
at the same time, or separately. Whether it is wise to do so depends on
the issues and the "circumstances". 

To clarify what is under discussion here (since it is a pain to go back
and read the whole thing - though I did): there are four (4) potential
bylaw amendments in regard to quorums. To identify them, but not quote
them: 

Steve first proposed amendments to the following bylaws, for the purposes
indicated (I have put in brackets what majority requirement would remain):

4.d.  Remove 2/3 quorum for elections (largest numbers of votes elect).
4.e.  Remove 2/3 quorum for removing a director (3/4 majority required). 

Steve then, within a day, added to his proposal the additional motions:

5.b.  Remove 1/2 quorum for adopting proposals (1/2 majority required).
7.    Remove 2/3 quorum for amending bylaws (3/4 majority required).

response 94 of 200:

Dec 26 07:59 UTC 1994

  Well, think of this: in all the time you've been on Grex, do you
think that the membership could/would get hornswoggled by a vote
just because quorums were removed?  Do you think that more things will
get presented just becuase a quorum isn't needed?  If you think so,
then do vote against the upcomming proposal.

response 96 of 200:

Dec 26 15:04 UTC 1994

That is a good point, Mary, we won't know until we run another election.
Therefore, we should hold off on this proposal to remove quorums until
we find out why people didn't vote or find out the turnout is much better
now that people know (I assume) their vote counts.

My last statement might be another reason not to remove the quorum requirement.
When and if quorums are removed, people will find voting more unnecussary
than they do now.  

response 98 of 200:

Dec 26 18:11 UTC 1994

   Thats right!  We can take all the member's UIDs and stuff
them in an array, and index into that array based on the UID of
the number of people who try to run trn on any given day.
Democracy by elecrtonic fiat.
                                                               ;-)