|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 115 responses total. |
twinkie
|
|
response 76 of 115:
| 
Feb 19 20:44 UTC 2004 |
Bappy, is this you?
http://www.doesitsuck.net/grex/bappy.jpg
|
rational
|
|
response 77 of 115:
|
Feb 19 21:24 UTC 2004 |
doesitsuck.net?! haha! twinkie brings out the big guns! Hahaha! It's that
picture! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Take a ribbon!
|
tod
|
|
response 78 of 115:
|
Feb 19 22:13 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 79 of 115:
|
Feb 20 01:07 UTC 2004 |
SUPPORT THE CAUSE
|
jp2
|
|
response 80 of 115:
|
Feb 23 23:35 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 81 of 115:
|
Feb 23 23:39 UTC 2004 |
(What is the final text, jp2?)
|
jp2
|
|
response 82 of 115:
|
Feb 24 00:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
salad
|
|
response 83 of 115:
|
Feb 24 01:01 UTC 2004 |
234
|
jp2
|
|
response 84 of 115:
|
Feb 25 13:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
salad
|
|
response 85 of 115:
|
Feb 25 14:11 UTC 2004 |
Yep.
|
remmers
|
|
response 86 of 115:
|
Feb 25 17:52 UTC 2004 |
Was away for a few days; back now.
Just to be clear - you want this voted on, and #55 contains
the final wording?
|
jp2
|
|
response 87 of 115:
|
Feb 26 02:56 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 88 of 115:
|
Feb 26 02:59 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 89 of 115:
|
Feb 26 03:13 UTC 2004 |
Has anyone expressed an interest in endorsing this proposal?
(I know that's not relevant [yet], but it would be interesting to
see if 10% of the membership would endorse it.)
|
rational
|
|
response 90 of 115:
|
Feb 26 03:14 UTC 2004 |
that ten eper cent endoursement thing will ruin grex's culture. just watch
it.
|
tod
|
|
response 91 of 115:
|
Feb 26 04:13 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 92 of 115:
|
Feb 26 04:36 UTC 2004 |
I'm not a member, but I endorse the proposal.
|
remmers
|
|
response 93 of 115:
|
Feb 26 16:01 UTC 2004 |
Re #88: Send me mail when you've got a final wording and are ready
to proceed.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 94 of 115:
|
Feb 26 17:58 UTC 2004 |
If endorsement were required, I wouldn't gime mine to this "try #2".
If this comes to a vote, I would recommend a "NO" vote.
|
remmers
|
|
response 95 of 115:
|
Feb 28 14:57 UTC 2004 |
Jamie requested that this move to a vote with #55 as the wording,
so voting will start at midnight tonight.
|
salad
|
|
response 96 of 115:
|
Feb 28 19:46 UTC 2004 |
Okeydoke
|
albaugh
|
|
response 97 of 115:
|
Feb 29 07:04 UTC 2004 |
I recommend a NO vote on this proposal, even though I recommended a yes vote
to the same thing the first time. The members spoke, pretty convincingly so,
and there is nothing new to decide about this.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 98 of 115:
|
Mar 2 06:24 UTC 2004 |
It's too bad that this group doesn't operate under Roberts Rules of Order.
It would be out of order to call for the same vote twice in a row in
the same session (which would have to be defined). However a member of the
assembly (members) could move to reconsider the vote. This takes a majority
to pass. In addition, the person that moves to reconsider *must have voted
on the prevailing side* in the original vote. All this would, I think, have
stopped this second vote on the same motion.
|
rational
|
|
response 99 of 115:
|
Mar 2 12:57 UTC 2004 |
It's not the same motion.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 100 of 115:
|
Mar 2 13:28 UTC 2004 |
Rane, Roberts Rules would not have stopped the voting. It would have required
1) a public vote on the issue so we could know who was on the prevailing side,
2) another vote to decide whether or not to reconsider the original motion,
and then, having done all that (and assuming the vote to reconsider failed),
(3) a pubic vote on the new motion.
I, for one, am not willing to give up the secret ballot and impose more
procedures. If a member enjoys gaming the rules, having fewer rules rahter
than more rules makes more sense.
|