From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Oct 21 19:28:46 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:28:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.240.8]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P97N2-0003Wj-Uq for llg-board@lojban.org; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:28:46 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20101022022833.QAUA5729.eastrmmtao102.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:28:33 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.179.118.163]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id MeUY1f0093Xcbvq02eUZmH; Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:28:34 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=z6CBhH0tHruS0FbwYG+vLjSarkX/HqbUMpkqCCzoucY= c=1 sm=1 a=59we2q7mdb0A:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:17 a=n0GNLJFCrd0fZx8tDsYA:9 a=X1KQB3rA_Or_18pL25SDGTRgbRUA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Message-ID: <4CC0F715.5030305@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:29:41 -0400 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: New Board meeting References: <4C9A674F.5020102@lojban.org> <4CB47D1D.301@lojban.org> <20101016195607.GN25393@digitalkingdom.org> <4CBAC385.4030303@lojban.org> <20101017203635.GX25393@digitalkingdom.org> <4CBDE3C0.3040107@lojban.org> <20101020104510.GG8367@nvg.org> <4CC00061.1000301@lojban.org> <20101021181541.GI23719@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20101021181541.GI23719@digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 719 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: >>Would Robin and Veijo like to amend their motion regarding the VP >>candidate? Or should we proceed to a vote? >> >>If there is no response by 2359 Friday night, we will proceed to >>vote on the moved slate. > > > Why not have Veijo take the VP slot, since he seems to want to be > actively involved? I can support it. I'll take this as an attempt to amend. If Veijo accepts the amendment (and the job), I'll allow three days from his acceptance for objection. If there is objection within 3 days, we will vote, otherwise, I'll call the motion passed without objection. If Veijo doesn't want the job, we'll vote on the original motion with Arnt as the willing but not desirous nominee. lojbab