MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAO1AUJPzn1Q21yztEkmzMCsJco6SYcOY6=D2P82oSe4T0hSL+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D74856F-2DE5-4D2D-B748-86FE1EA42ECC@gmail.com> <56D43C1B.8030802@lojban.org>
In-Reply-To: <56D43C1B.8030802@lojban.org>
From: Craig Daniel <craigbdaniel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:41:41 +0000
Message-ID: <CAP=UV6rzGCM4rPXoV5DG-ROW-MZj9rH0KYoo9DRpei=hf0uEaw@mail.gmail.com>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Spam_score: -2.0
X-Spam_score_int: -19
X-Spam_bar: --
Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Demand for depriving Gleki of his
 administratorship and of official-pretending accounts.
X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4390918265547408609=="
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

--===============4390918265547408609==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2e964b384ea052ce8cf36

--001a11c2e964b384ea052ce8cf36
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016, 7:39 AM Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG <
lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

> On 2/28/2016 11:45 AM, Craig Daniel wrote:
> > Are there any policies against doing the things described?
>
> I'll take this as a point of inquiry, and as I will indicate below, gets
> to the heart of what LLG, its membership, and its Board, are supposedly
> about.  I address specific comments to mukti and guskant below, and
> Robin may wish to say something if he reads this. My next-to-last
> paragraph is explicitly directed to all members.
>
> You are a Board member, Craig? Shouldn't Board members have the
> responsibility to know the answers to such questions?
>
> The answer is that there are essentially NO official policies of any
> sort regarding the web site.  Robin is the owner/administrator, and he
> set things up the way he wanted with no discussion by the Board and
> negligible discussion in the members or main mailing lists.


That was largely my understanding, and I did hunt around briefly for any
policies about the website. I found none, but wanted to confirm I wasn't
missing something.

This approach has not previously caused any problems I'm aware of, but it
seems vulnerable to much bigger ones in the future.

Per above, new Business, unless it is subsumed under byfy authority, in
> which case Old Business.  You (Craig) are a Board member until the
> member meeting ends, even if you do not seek reelection, and thus can
> bring it up at the Board meeting if you want a more immediate policy
> discussion/decision.
>

I consider creating web policy where there has been none to be a matter the
entire membership ought to have a say in, given that the point at which
it's seen as an issue is during the meeting of the members. I fully intend
to bring it up when we get to new business.

(In parliamentary terms I regard threads like this one, which don't deal
with any motions, as being like going into moderated caucus: a great way to
talk out what we want to achieve later under the rules of procedure, but
not empowered to actually do it until we're back to submitting formal
motions.)

--001a11c2e964b384ea052ce8cf36
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr">On Mon, Feb 29, 2016, 7=
:39 AM=C2=A0Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG &lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:lojbab@lojban.org">lojbab@lojban.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex">On 2/28/2016 11:45 AM, Craig Daniel wrote:<br>
&gt; Are there any policies against doing the things described?<br>
<br>
I&#39;ll take this as a point of inquiry, and as I will indicate below, get=
s<br>
to the heart of what LLG, its membership, and its Board, are supposedly<br>
about.=C2=A0 I address specific comments to mukti and guskant below, and<br=
>
Robin may wish to say something if he reads this. My next-to-last<br>
paragraph is explicitly directed to all members.<br>
<br>
You are a Board member, Craig? Shouldn&#39;t Board members have the<br>
responsibility to know the answers to such questions?<br>
<br>
The answer is that there are essentially NO official policies of any<br>
sort regarding the web site.=C2=A0 Robin is the owner/administrator, and he=
<br>
set things up the way he wanted with no discussion by the Board and<br>
negligible discussion in the members or main mailing lists.</blockquote></d=
iv><div><br></div><div>That was largely my understanding, and I did hunt ar=
ound briefly for any policies about the website. I found none, but wanted t=
o confirm I wasn&#39;t missing something.</div><div><br></div><div>This app=
roach has not previously caused any problems I&#39;m aware of, but it seems=
 vulnerable to much bigger ones in the future.</div><div><br></div><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Per above, new Business, =
unless it is subsumed under byfy authority, in<br>
which case Old Business.=C2=A0 You (Craig) are a Board member until the<br>
member meeting ends, even if you do not seek reelection, and thus can<br>
bring it up at the Board meeting if you want a more immediate policy<br>
discussion/decision.<br></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>I consider c=
reating web policy where there has been none to be a matter the entire memb=
ership ought to have a say in, given that the point at which it&#39;s seen =
as an issue is during the meeting of the members. I fully intend to bring i=
t up when we get to new business.</div><div><br></div><div>(In parliamentar=
y terms I regard threads like this one, which don&#39;t deal with any motio=
ns, as being like going into moderated caucus: a great way to talk out what=
 we want to achieve later under the rules of procedure, but not empowered t=
o actually do it until we&#39;re back to submitting formal motions.)</div>

--001a11c2e964b384ea052ce8cf36--


--===============4390918265547408609==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============4390918265547408609==--