Received: from localhost ([::1]:32819 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3eAA-0004Qi-NR; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 22:39:27 -0700 Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:33291) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Z3e9y-0004QI-I2 for llg-board@lojban.org; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 22:39:18 -0700 Received: by wiwd19 with SMTP id d19so32686441wiw.0 for ; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 22:39:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=2MndofjXxta0OTafM+SQGZLOBihWgmQukF5xYec3Luw=; b=rdH7KPdUiqW5m0d66SpzO0tHEDZeGz76q7PM7Srq47VZIrtEXsuJlmLRJF7FsrlUty yLmlY8fwKzQAllJJI9tVm++yYs2LcKQIjGuPcDh2zg32sVmj0vCEcBmhzUJHGH5fmHg9 gyFfXE0cxkSVFJNI2WYhvmuO2H4ToUKAIHwN5llx1G1ugJyTV2Tvj02yvKjPzKMmJ0Nm TJbXatOqHR/mEBwLz+TYFqtfiE4qr6ltn1lwfcbj/jPuKMJGhOvyaxvv/ybwwNfjePkJ VR3wsMoAmvXRVfR5XO8qLuvfPIU9Pnt1KNlsblXgLD6LbeRUgjf9BJarLIvG2pWikg4g BATw== X-Received: by 10.180.90.228 with SMTP id bz4mr13008342wib.69.1434173947906; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 22:39:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.221.167 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 22:38:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <557B7E82.7000908@gmail.com> 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> <557B2C90.8030801@lojban.org> <557B7E82.7000908@gmail.com> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 08:38:47 +0300 Message-ID: To: llg-board@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.0 X-Spam_score_int: -9 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-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9034355372047861675==" Errors-To: llg-board-bounces@lojban.org --===============9034355372047861675== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043be0a6b60fe805185fa46f --f46d043be0a6b60fe805185fa46f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2015-06-13 3:51 GMT+03:00 And Rosta : > Bob LeChevalier, On 12/06/2015 20:01: > >> And my younger sister has been dying (painfully) of cancer, >> reminding me yet again of my eventual mortality; she finally passed >> last night. >> > > My sympathies. I have had bitter experience of such sorrows myself. > > 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. >> > > In fairness I did say that as VP I would undertake the activity of leading > the search for someone to take on the Pres or VP role along the lines that > you wish, and further discussion established that we would set a soonish > deadline for concluding that search and holding new elections. Given how > much relevant volunteering is going on, I think that commitment from me is > quite significant and worth accepting. Riley and Craig are in favour. So we > could put it to a vote of the board and then get cracking. > > It's quite possible that noone would respond to a call to lead. If that > happens, then I think we should reissue the call, but this time just for > people willing to support Robin with keeping Lojban.org running and > publishing the new CLL and with keeping the first edition of CLL in print > until then. > > > 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'd be willing to take on the Pres role on the same basis under which I'd > offered to take on the VP role. Hopefully then when I issued the call for > volunteers to take on active leadership roles as Pres & VP, you would then > volunteer, on the basis that your partner, Pres or VP, would gradually take > over from you. > > >> 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. >> > I'm not against neither Bob nor And being either VP or P. But it's true that probably for obvious reasons of non-adding new members ultimately led to the lack of more candidates. > You think this is preferable to just issuing a call for people willing to > serve as officers, as per my proposal? > > 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 >> > > Of the current board, there is evidence of giving a damn from > > me > you > Riley > Craig > Ark/Gleki > > I don't recall any contribution from Ali or Timo, and I would be minded to > report this at the next LLG meeting. I don't think LLG should be dissolved otherwise why so many people sent requests to join LLG last year? > > > > > > 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. >> > > Okay. > > >> > 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. >> > > Only if a real contest is any in which the number of candidates exceed the > number of vacancies elected to. > > --And. > > > _______________________________________________ > llg-board mailing list > llg-board@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board > --f46d043be0a6b60fe805185fa46f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-06-13 3:51 GMT+03:00 And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
Bob LeChevalier, On 12/06/2015 20:01:
And my younger sister has been dying (painfully) of cancer,
reminding me yet again of my eventual mortality; she finally passed
last night.

 My sympathies. I have had bitter experience of such sorrows myself.

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.

 In fairness I did say that as VP I would undertake the activity of leading = the search for someone to take on the Pres or VP role along the lines that = you wish, and further discussion established that we would set a soonish de= adline for concluding that search and holding new elections. Given how much= relevant volunteering is going on, I think that commitment from me is quit= e significant and worth accepting. Riley and Craig are in favour. So we cou= ld put it to a vote of the board and then get cracking.

It's quite possible that noone would respond to a call to lead. If that= happens, then I think we should reissue the call, but this time just for p= eople willing to support Robin with keeping Lojban.org running and publishi= ng the new CLL and with keeping the first edition of CLL in print until the= n.


On 5/31/2015 4:56 PM, And Rosta wrote:
On 31 May 2015 21:02, "Riley Martinez-Lynch" <shunpiker@gmail.com
<mailto:shunpik= er@gmail.com>> wrote:
=C2=A0>
=C2=A0> 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=C2=A0 the<= br> 1200 academics at the university).

=C2=A0> 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 the= se
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'd be willing to take on the Pres role on the same basis under which I= 'd offered to take on the VP role. Hopefully then when I issued the cal= l for volunteers to take on active leadership roles as Pres & VP, you w= ould then volunteer, on the basis that your partner, Pres or VP, would grad= ually take over from you.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0 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.

I'm not against neither Bob nor And being either VP o= r P.
But it's true that probably for obvious reasons of non-a= dding new members ultimately led to the lack of more candidates.
=

You think this is preferable to just issuing a call for people willing to s= erve as officers, as per my proposal?

Do we need to consider dissolving LLG?=C2=A0
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

 Of the current board, there is evidence of giving a damn from

me
you
Riley
Craig
Ark/Gleki

I don't recall any contribution from Ali or Timo, and I would be minded= to report this at the next LLG meeting.

I = don't think LLG should be dissolved otherwise why so many people sent r= equests to join LLG last year?

=C2=A0
=



=C2=A0> 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.

 Okay.


=C2=A0> To make it clear, I'm not at all opposed to developing new b= ylaws
governing elections. I seem to recall that someone -- was it guskant?
--=C2=A0 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.

 Only if a real contest is any in which the number of candidates exceed the = number of vacancies elected to.
--And.


_______________________________________________
llg-board mailing list
llg-board@lojban.= org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board

--f46d043be0a6b60fe805185fa46f-- --===============9034355372047861675== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ llg-board mailing list llg-board@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board --===============9034355372047861675==--