From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Nov 08 03:49:41 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:49:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from centrmmtao01.cox.net ([70.168.83.83]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Ghlvc-00006V-LE for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:49:27 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by centrmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20061108114914.UPCX2189.centrmmtao01.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 06:49:14 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id kBoJ1V0093y5FKc0000000; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 06:48:21 -0500 Message-ID: <4551C431.6030304@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 06:49:05 -0500 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Lojban at Philcon References: <20061103224551.GI13321@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <454BCD8A.2090306@lojban.org> <454D271D.4040903@lojban.org> <454F8195.6050507@lojban.org> <20061106184455.GZ13321@chain.digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20061106184455.GZ13321@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 234 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 01:40:21PM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > >>Matt Arnold wrote: >> >>>>Since no one else has done so, and we need to move this along, I >>>>second the motion, and then call the question so we can get it >>>>decided. >> >> > >> >>>I vote in favor. >>> >>>-Eppcott >> >>I do also. But are any others on the board paying attention, so >>that a decision can be made? The Philcon people are waiting. > > > In an amusing reversal of my past policy, I proxy my vote to > Eppcott. > > I like to think my reasons in this case are pretty damned good, > though. Jay and Arnt haven't spoken, and no one seems to be chairing this meeting at the moment. The Board of Directors of LLG exists to make business decisions on a more timely basis than can be made by the entire membership. We have no policy at all on expenditures, and thus technically, not a penny can be spent without Board approval. I will trot out my comment and Robin's reply from the member's meeting of last July. >>I had no complaint about Arnt's efforts (or yours for that >>> matter). I merely noted to myself that one of the major >>> legitimate complaints about my modus operandi as president was >>> that I made decisions, discussing them with an officer or two >>> (Nora or John) and carried them out without putting it formally to >>> the Board, and sometimes without recording a formal explanation. >>> Given your post-transition focus on LLG as a legal and business >>> entity, I am especially concerned with watching for those >>> activities which might be troublesome in that context. > > Understood and appreciated; I honestly *forgot* that we hadn't > consulted the whole board. Very much my bad, and I explicitely > request that you continue to hound me about this sort of thing in > the future. The Board has been consulted. There are five Board members. Two have voted in favor of the motion, and Matt has Robin's proxy, and thus can vote a third vote in favor. I suggest to Matt that if no one objects within a short time at his discretion, that he consider that he has the votes needed to approve the spending of LLG money for the suite at Philcon, and thus that he do precisely what I was criticized for doing when I ran the organization. Unfortunately, Matt isn't an officer (nor am I), and he will have to ask Robin for the money. Can the LLG Board start acting like a Board of Directors? lojbab (thoroughly pissed)