From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Dec 26 14:03:42 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:03:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.240.46]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J7eLe-0005jK-O5 for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 14:03:42 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20071226220328.GYQI23675.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:03:28 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id Va2a1Y0013y5FKc0000000; Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:02:34 -0500 Message-ID: <4772CFE6.6030301@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:04:22 -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: Official: Election of officers References: <20071212195559.GA4608@nvg.org> <20071212200501.GD30117@mercury.ccil.org> <20071217170704.GB31951@nvg.org> <20071226153056.GE31951@nvg.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 358 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 Matt Arnold wrote: > Thanks, Arnt. Does anyone have any other business for this meeting? If > not, I move to adjourn. Point of information. A motion to adjourn is a formal procedure, with rather high precedence (if it wasn't the president making the motion, I would fear being out of order to discuss it which is why I raise this as a point of information). Unlike the members meeting which is an annual thing, the LLG Board meeting has been kept open without adjourning for an incredibly long time (years), because the alternative is to call a meeting, with all the formality that entails, ensuring a quorum is present, etc. I suggest that the president, in his dislike of formality, would rather the meeting be kept open and informal. So, probably, would the secretary, who would have to somehow create minutes for a meeting that has gone on pretty much as long as he has been in office, a fate that he is spared so long as the meeting never concludes %^) In the olden days, we had a 5 minute meeting right after the members meeting to elect officers, and when as President I needed Board approval of something (such as the expediture of money or the approval of a policy) I had to send out notice and call each member sequentially by telephone (luckily we were still all in the US then) to vote on each issue raised, and this meant things could not be done too quickly. I have no idea what is legal in the Internet era under a new set of rules, so I ask the two parliamentarians to add their two cents as to any other formal ramifications of adjournment. lojbab