From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Fri Nov 10 10:45:43 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:45:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GibNl-0005wL-Gb for llg-board@lojban.org; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:45:41 -0800 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:45:41 -0800 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: LLG meeting during Logfest (Re: Re: LCS Board of Directors (fwd)) Message-ID: <20061110184541.GG17734@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-board@lojban.org References: <4554A4BA.4000907@lojban.org> <20061110174122.GH23121@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20061110181023.GD17734@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 261 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board ("Geez, sorry. My bad." sounds sarcastic; I know you well enough to know it isn't, but I wanted to point that out to the rest of the board) There's actually a bigger issue than "can we have one?" which is "why bother?". As far as I know, there is no LLG business that needs to be discussed except for Sai's proposal (yeah, *right*), and new art. For the new art issue, I was under the impression that we wanted a community sense rather than a membership vote. WRT the "can we?", I suspect that we have to give at least 15 days notice for a special meeting, but I haven't checked the bylaws. -Robin On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 01:39:15PM -0500, Matt Arnold wrote: > Well, we're there, we might as well meet as long as we had > everybody there. I'm sorry, I thought I mentioned this on > llg-members on October 24, but all I did was bring up that we had > eight of us present and ask how big a percentage that was if we > don't count inactive members. I intended to broach the topic once > I had that info, and then somehow I got it into my head that it > was all straightened out. > > I hope it's not too late to think about it. Does a meeting of the > membership have to be called to order by the President of the > Board? Geez, sorry. My bad. > > -Eppcott > > On 11/10/06, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 07:06:33PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen > >wrote: > >> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Matt Arnold wrote: > >> > >> >What's AGM? "Annual General Meeting"? Is this a decision that > >> >could be made at the LLG meeting taking place at Philcon? > >> > >> Hm. Oh. *Now* I see that there is an LLG meeting as part of the > >> program. > >> > >> I may have missed it (I'm frightfully absent-minded at times, as > >> you are no doubt aware), but when was it decided that there was to > >> be a special meeting of the members at Philcon? > > > >This is also news to me; I thought he just meant the fact that lots > >of LLG members would be there. > > > >-Robin > > > >-- > >http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ > >Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" > >Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ > > > > > > > > -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/