Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Riley Martinez-Lynch <shunpiker@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54DD2B86.2020506@lojban.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 21:41:04 -0500
Message-Id: <DC06A47A-7B20-4536-BC18-2A2AD1B4A60E@gmail.com>
References: <C37220F2-F066-4DED-9C2C-473F6BEF4968@gmail.com>
 <CAO7tK2fUviuhSZT_QpD-JPW1QtxPuhws340Q95AUxjcT3wEn+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP=UV6pN8iZVPk9bpPz6_28PDQddWyc2rrqzLHE6k831_G3bjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3E69666-53DE-4B92-BB81-4363668E4CDB@gmail.com> <ojeN1p00C56Cr6M01jePMf>
 <54D471BB.2070605@lojban.org> <p1P41p01a56Cr6M011P5R3>
 <54D66BA8.5040607@lojban.org>
 <08041A2E-FC72-4E80-AAB4-468A1A3C4DB4@gmail.com>
 <54DA533B.2090803@lojban.org> <r11k1p01Z56Cr6M0111m6z>
 <54DD2B86.2020506@lojban.org>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Spam_score: 0.7
X-Spam_score_int: 7
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software,
 running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", 
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details.
 Content preview:  On Feb 12, 2015, at 5:39 PM, "Bob LeChevalier, President and
 Founder - LLG" wrote: > It seems that your proposal has strongly evolved
 from the BPFK as a group determining policies and procedures, to the chair
 having that power exclusively. [...] 
 Content analysis details:   (0.7 points, 5.0 required)
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
 See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
 for more information. [URIs: lojban.org]
 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL    RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org
 [listed in gmail.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org.	IN] [A]
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
 (shunpiker[at]gmail.com)
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 [score: 0.0000]
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
 domain
 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
 not necessarily valid
Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Motion: BPFK Reauthorization (amendment)
X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: <llg-members.lojban.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/options/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/>
List-Post: <mailto:llg-members@lojban.org>
List-Help: <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

On Feb 12, 2015, at 5:39 PM, "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

> It seems that your proposal has strongly evolved from the BPFK as a group determining policies and procedures, to the chair having that power exclusively.

I wouldn't characterize the proposal as vesting power exclusively in the chair, and I disagree that it has "strongly evolved" in that direction.

The only change to the chair's role in the proposal relative to when lojbab described it as assigning to the chair the role of "primarily a communicator or coordinator" (an interpretation that also differs from my own) is that it grants to the chair the permission to appoint or remove members.

This amendment was prompted by the discovery that parliamentary procedure does not extend that power to committee chairs. I suggested this not in order to unduly extend the chair's privileges, but to ensure that the power of appointment rests in BPFK rather than setting up a scenario where LLG is micro-managing the membership of the committee.

Given that no one can become chair of the committee without the confidence of the membership, or in the case of an interim chair, the Board, it's reasonable to believe that chairs would execute the responsibility of appointment, as well as their other duties, in the interest of LLG. Should they fail to do so, LLG has conventional remedies at its disposal.

I'm concerned that providing a method to appoint members from outside the committee could undermine the ability of the committee and the chair to maintain expectations for members. However, if the prevailing sentiment is that this risk is outweighed by other considerations, perhaps an amendment could be drafted that authorizes LLG to name members of the committee at the time that a new chair is elected. In that case, it would be important to stress the exceptional nature of those appointments, such that LLG would not become the "appointing or electing authority", which could interfere with the committee's authority to manage those appointments, or to make other appointments.

--Riley
_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members