From arj@nvg.org Thu Jan 05 11:39:00 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:39:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Euawm-0003Aj-OI for llg-board@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:38:59 -0800 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no [129.241.210.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89B594786 for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:38:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 20:37:21 +0100 (CET) From: Arnt Richard Johansen X-X-Sender: arj@hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Two organizations In-Reply-To: <20060105191417.GI4710@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: References: <20051226195753.GB5289@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20060102042644.GJ4087@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20060102173819.GL29659@miranda.org> <43B9C64B.5050805@lojban.org> <20060105191417.GI4710@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-NVG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NVG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: arj@nvg.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 70 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arj@nvg.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen > wrote: >> But we do need to open up the membership more. > > No, we really really really don't. > > It's almost impossible to get anything done at the meetings *now* > because we never have 2/3rds of the members actually present to vote > on things. Even with proxies we've sometimes been under that > number, I'm pretty sure. That's not what I refer to when I say "members". The people who are now members get to keep their duties and privileges, but are referred to by another name yet to be defined, call it broda. After that, we institute a _new_ class of members, that are basically the same thing as the people that Lojbab has on his snail-mail list (his word for those people totally escapes me atm). The broda still do all the work, but the members (as per the new terminology) get the warm, fuzzy feeling of being called members. If we didn't want these people to be called members, ie. if we were content with "associate members" or "supporters", no bylaw changes should be necessary. Maybe we could revive this scheme: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Old%20LLG%20Registration%20Form and make it for pay. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Someone just called to say he loved you?!