Received: from localhost ([::1]:60256 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3UDB-0001Sq-1T; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:01:53 -0700 Received: from eastrmfepo203.cox.net ([68.230.241.218]:42760) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3UCv-0001S1-8c for llg-board@lojban.org; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:01:44 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo306 ([68.230.241.238]) by eastrmfepo203.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.15 201-2260-151-145-20131218) with ESMTP id <20150612190130.YUOP9245.eastrmfepo203.cox.net@eastrmimpo306> for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:01:30 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([72.209.242.63]) by eastrmimpo306 with cox id fX1W1q00J1Nn1eG01X1WfZ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:01:30 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020204.557B2C8A.02F6,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=LrhMPAhc c=1 sm=1 a=sOxKrxY1QYXBcFVBIkZEyQ==:17 a=FvAEXBeo5g4A:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=FbeNDDGEpThJqS_w5dsA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=sOxKrxY1QYXBcFVBIkZEyQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Message-ID: <557B2C90.8030801@lojban.org> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:01:36 -0400 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-board@lojban.org References: <554513DC.1040404@lojban.org> <67FF02B5-7AF9-49A1-87A8-B8C1F76A16AA@gmail.com> <554B1CA4.1060509@lojban.org> <5550DD9F.2010607@lojban.org> <556B4694.9070603@gmail.com> <7EE71AC4-CE8B-4B5B-86F6-470184858A8D@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - Subject: Re: [llg-board] Board election X-BeenThere: llg-board@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-board@lojban.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: llg-board-bounces@lojban.org I guess I'd better speak up, in hopes that someone wants to decide something. I've been rather disillusioned of late (not that I had all that many illusions) seeing byfy apparently debating all sorts of language changes with nary a word from the new jatna (organization? What's that?), and of course the impasse we have on electing officers. And my younger sister has been dying (painfully) of cancer, reminding me yet again of my eventual mortality; she finally passed last night. So here goes. I note that I am speaking in the superfective of serving as President, so we are being quite Lojbanic if nothing else. My term should have ended by now. I would hate to see need for something official happen that cannot be handled by Riley in his office as Secretary/Treasurer, because I am not sure of the validity of any "official" actions that I take. I stated my sense of vision if I am reelected President, requiring a VP who would be working to aid me in community leadership with an end that eventually allows me to bow out gracefully. And is the only one who has spoken up at all as a volunteer for VP, but his willingness is expressed as pretty much diametrically opposite to what I described, basically holding the office as a space filler. We might as well leave the VP position vacant, if no one is willing to even minimally fulfill the position. On 5/31/2015 4:56 PM, And Rosta wrote: > On 31 May 2015 21:02, "Riley Martinez-Lynch" > wrote: > > > > I think this demonstrates exactly what we need in a VP: Someone who > notices that the meeting is stalled, and does what is needed to get > things moving again. > > Right. But to be clear, I don't want to take on that important role. > Large amounts of my too-demanding professional life involve that role > (at my university I lead the team of academics who teach linguistics, > and I lead the team of trade union representatives who represent the > 1200 academics at the university). > > > I second And's proposal. Nobody has yet made an actual motion, and I don't think nominations need a second. I'm really reluctant to be President with no real backup, as per And's proposal, so I won't nominate myself under these conditions, and will pretty much require a strong sense that people really want me to continue without a backup, even with the haphazard way I've been performing in order to accept a draft. I especially appreciate the idea of tying > the recruitment of directors to a discussion of the officers election. I think at this point, we ought to report to the members that the Board has a lack of people willing to serve as officers, and get a sense of what they would like to do. Do we need to consider dissolving LLG? I'd hate for that to happen with no bona fide successor organization. I believe that books would not be published, and our slowly accumulated funds would have to be donated to other nonprofits and would not be available to support Lojban activities and projects. But if no one gives a damn about preserving the capability for an organization to do business, LLG will eventually die > > Regarding And's question about the how the president is elected, I > personally think that the current system is adequate: That the principal > problem in electing a leader is a dearth of candidates. I'm skeptical as > to whether changing the way a president is selected from the pool of > candidates is likely to alleviate that problem. The only plausible "improvement" that I see would be to have the membership elect officers instead of the Board, with officer being ex-officio Board members. That has the problem of what to do if there is a vacancy. > > So, while I personally don't see it as problematic that the board > elects officers, and the membership elects the board, I do think that > it's important to make efforts to raise awareness of these activities. I > have at least one relevant proposal in mind for the board's attention: I > was planning on raising it after the officer's election, but this seems > like a good time to offer a preview: I want to open the llg-members > mailing list, such that anyone can read it, but only members may make > unmoderated posts to the list. > > I agree about opening the llg-members archives. Probably you should > check on the list itself that nobody objects. As I see it, Robin ruled as Secretary that the mailing list archives would serve as meeting minutes, and since we are required by law to have meeting minutes be publicly available (indeed nominally in a printed copy at my house, which is our legal headquarters), the member archives should be open without a vote. Unless the new Secretary wants to come up with a better set of "minutes" for the last umpteen years. (we also need the same for Board meetings, except that the Board long ago explicitly decided NOT to have its meetings/archives be public, so we simply have been in violation of the law since Robin took office. > > To make it clear, I'm not at all opposed to developing new bylaws > governing elections. I seem to recall that someone -- was it guskant? > -- had some interesting ideas about balloting that were discussed > during the meeting. But I want to emphasize that my primary and > immediate concern is with finding willing and qualified candidates. I think we can pretty much agree that if there is no real contest among the set of candidates, the voting method is pretty much irrelevant. lojbab _______________________________________________ llg-board mailing list llg-board@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board