Received: from localhost ([::1]:48790 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1dCtuT-0006Ru-Sa; Mon, 22 May 2017 13:26:33 -0700 Received: from eastrmfepo203.cox.net ([68.230.241.218]:33968) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1dCtuR-0006Rl-TX for llg-board@lojban.org; Mon, 22 May 2017 13:26:32 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo209.cox.net ([68.230.241.224]) by eastrmfepo203.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.28 201-2260-151-171-20160122) with ESMTP id <20170522202626.LHPC16450.eastrmfepo203.cox.net@eastrmimpo209.cox.net> for ; Mon, 22 May 2017 16:26:26 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([72.209.244.98]) by eastrmimpo209.cox.net with cox id PYSR1v00L2869s801YSRfy; Mon, 22 May 2017 16:26:25 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020205.59234971.0172, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=HKpNF+dv c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:117 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=PMayK-KgzlQA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=CFduf-r33uSraS3MeI4A:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=6kGIvZw6iX1k4Y-7sg4_:22 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none To: llg-board@lojban.org References: <07e037b7-c069-5754-f6bf-4de87aad9e8f@lojban.org> From: Bob LeChevalier Message-ID: <2ca4db86-f583-e50a-4fff-8aebac68f93c@lojban.org> Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 16:26:25 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 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] "New" Board Meeting X-BeenThere: llg-board@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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 On 5/17/2017 2:11 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > 2017-05-17 6:31 GMT+03:00 Karen Stein >: > > In response to Gleki's question, I think having two vice-presidents > is an excellent idea. > > > As for officers I vote for the current state of affairs except: > 1. Karen for President > 2. If needed change bylaws to allow more than one Vice-President that > can start, run or adjourn meetings of the Board We (the Board) cannot change the Bylaws. That is done by the Members during a meeting which either has 100% attendance, or which has the Bylaw proposal offered in the meeting call (in advance of the actual meeting). So if you want this, you probably need to create some exact Bylaw text in time for the agenda discussion for the next meeting, currently intended for the beginning of next month. > 3. I vote for la lojbab. and Curtis for Vice-Presidents unless some of > them don't want that. I don't particularly support the idea of two vice presidents; one is plenty (given that the Board can always appoint another if the current one cannot do the job). I'll note that if you have two, you need to specify some way of determining precedence, so that you don't have two people both claiming to chair a meeting (not that this is likely, but it is perhaps at least as likely as having both a President and a (first) Vice President who cannot do the jobs. I suggest that if the concern is specific to running meetings, that you have the Secretary (or his delegate) take the chair in the event, since one has to hope that the Secretary is present at the meeting for other reasons. Or better yet, since we've done this in the past, is to have the President (or VP) simply turn the chair over to a third person (the chair was delegated to Robin Powell at least a couple of times while he was Secretary). If the purpose is merely honorary, so as (perhaps) to not offend me by having Curtis as VP and NOT lojbab, (or to avoid having situation such as to choose between Karen and Curtis for VP as in the last year), please don't. I did fine not being an officer (other than Virginia Representative) for several years. I should note that it is possible to have as few as three members on the Board of Directors, so it makes a lot of sense not to have more than three officer positions (if the Directors had ever elected a non-director as an officer, which is theoretically allowed, this argument would be invalid, but I think that non-Director officers would lead to worse problems). If people really want to push for two VPs, I suggest that the minimum Board size be increased to 4 in the same amendment. lojbab _______________________________________________ llg-board mailing list llg-board@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board