From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jul 06 13:49:57 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1DqGqB-0000pv-6G
	for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2005 13:49:55 -0700
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 13:49:55 -0700
To: llg-members@lojban.org
Subject: [llg-members] Re: Annual Meeting: In This List?
Message-ID: <20050706204955.GX1602@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: llg-members@lojban.org
References: <20050629214429.GF29769@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <42C33AAE.7060403@lojban.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <42C33AAE.7060403@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-archive-position: 7
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org
X-list: llg-members

On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 08:19:58PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > So, the President (jcowan) and I missed the official default
> > time for the annual meeting.  Oops.
> >
> > As we have nothing planned for the meeting agenda at all (i.e.
> > we have nothing to put before the members this year), we'd like
> > to just have the meeting on this mailing list over the course of
> > a week or so.
> >
> > Does anyone have a problem with that?
>
> If you think the meeting can be run effectively in non-real-time,
> and the bylaws allow it,

That's never really been all that clear, but I'm not aware of a
strong case to the contrary.

> then obviously it will be OK.

*nod*

> I have misgivings in there being no provision for nonmembers to
> participate on this list, and thus our tradition of inviting
> potential new members to attend at the very least does not easily
> allow someone to join ad hoc.

I, for one, am becoming more and more of the opinion that the LLG
should be a business organization only, and that we already have too
many members to be effective for some things.  This may represent me
coming closer to Bob's old opinion, I don't know.

> You need to ensure that all members are currently signed up for
> the list with what you believe to be their current address,

That was done some time ago, but should probably be done again.

> and that they are receiving mail.

I do not believe that we have any bounces off of this list, but I
will check.

> But all this depends on how inclusive you want to be.  Since we
> don't expect any controversy, merely having a quorum might be good
> enough.  I just hope you can get a quorum to respond on the list
> within short notice.

Umm, mail-in votes don't require quorum.  The act of sending the
voting form to the member establishes their presence, unless the
mail is returned.

> If you or anyone is planning to propose an alternate slate of
> board members to reelecting the current ones, then we need to try
> hard to be inclusive, or those not included might feel railroaded.

I have no such intention.

-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/