From ted.reed@gmail.com Tue Nov 20 20:09:00 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:09:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from dsl081-066-183.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.66.183] helo=pinfu.digitalkingdom.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IugOI-0002hJ-03 for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:36:43 -0800 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.176]) by pinfu.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Iubgm-0006Bo-AL for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:35:29 -0800 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a25so3932882pyi for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:34:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.23.7 with SMTP id a7mr14942525qbj.1195587992747; Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:46:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.25.187.111? ( [32.168.111.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e17sm5013922qbe.2007.11.20.11.46.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:46:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <021193C2-493B-4E81-BA0A-CF444F6D11B4@gmail.com> From: Ted Reed To: "llg-members@lojban.org" In-Reply-To: <20071120191041.GR17046@digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (3B48b) Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 3B48b) Subject: [llg-members] Re: Motion fails (was Re: PLEASE VOTE! -- LLG AGM 2007: Bylaw Alterations) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:46:18 -0800 References: <20070918181955.GW10667@nvg.org> <20071007030525.GF20839@digitalkingdom.org> <20071114172810.GI13652@digitalkingdom.org> <20071120082554.GH17046@digitalkingdom.org> <47430B18.9030807@lojban.org> <925d17560711200956i2b5ce1a6r1deef2d25234ee8e@mail.gmail.com> <13D9F742-18E7-4E79-A599-93AC4DF1778C@gmail.com> <20071120191041.GR17046@digitalkingdom.org> X-Spam-Score: 1.3 X-Spam-Score-Int: 13 X-Spam-Bar: + X-archive-position: 568 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ted.reed@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On Nov 20, 2007, at 11:10, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:06:29AM -0800, Ted Reed wrote: >> Is there a good reason to not perform an actual roll call? > > I was going to say "because I don't want to spend three weeks trying > to get everyone to respond", but I suppose we could just limit it to > 5 days or whatever and call anyone who doesn't respond in that time > "not present". > > Good idea; remind me next year, please. > > Note, however, that this does *not* help with bylaw amendments, > which are 2/3 of all members, not of all those present. > > -Robin > No, but I think that, from a parliamentary standpoint, it gives us a firmer ground for naming a member as inactive. Another alternative is to redefine sections of the bylaws to ignore inactive members. (Another organization that I'm in where I run the meetings has a rule that defines quorum as 2/3 of the members not suspended who were present at the last meeting.) -- bancus