|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 115 responses total. |
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.
|
mdw
|
|
response 101 of 115:
|
Mar 7 04:34 UTC 2004 |
I voted "no". I don't think grex needs to restore swiss cheese.
Additionally, although I think this is nitpicking, the procedure above
describing how the board & staff are supposed to implement this is
overly detailed. The board would almost certainly apoint a "volunteer",
and might want to have the ability to pick 2 or more people for
different parts of this. However, fixing this doesn't make this
particular resolution any more palatable to me so it's just a nit.
|
remmers
|
|
response 102 of 115:
|
Mar 8 11:30 UTC 2004 |
No vote from me too.
|
salad
|
|
response 103 of 115:
|
Mar 8 15:08 UTC 2004 |
AHAHAH YEAH< YOU REFUSE TO VOTE
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 104 of 115:
|
Mar 8 16:14 UTC 2004 |
I was wavering, voted yes, then changed my vote to NO on this one. I don't
think it actually solves any problem.
|
scott
|
|
response 105 of 115:
|
Mar 8 16:54 UTC 2004 |
#5 of 10: by James Howard (jp2) on Sun, Mar 7, 2004 (19:29):
I would assist if you voted for and supported my proposal.
|
remmers
|
|
response 106 of 115:
|
Mar 8 17:10 UTC 2004 |
The members decided, nothing new has been offered in support. Hence
an immediate revote is simply bad parliamentary procedure, regardless
of whether the rules allow it or not. Thus my "no".
|
jp2
|
|
response 107 of 115:
|
Mar 8 18:36 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 108 of 115:
|
Mar 8 19:37 UTC 2004 |
And it wouldn't have made any difference in the voting outcome, and it still
won't.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 109 of 115:
|
Mar 8 20:23 UTC 2004 |
Retract entry 4: I change my vote on the new policy, not on the 2nd vote on
the same old issue. I"ve never wavered about -not- restoring the items.
|