From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Oct 29 16:36:43 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:36:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao106.cox.net ([68.230.240.48]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KvKad-0006QV-Tl for llg-members@lojban.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:36:43 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20081029233609.MHLA4226.eastrmmtao106.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:36:09 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([70.187.235.94]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id Ync71a00922sj6m02nc7k5; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:36:08 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=HEp3WxBxXdUA:10 a=pLsZmdU2mTEA:10 a=RoybdWF3tcIu0CEidTQA:9 a=12o3cjK34uglMSLKGrYA:7 a=_Q7rCCdrn0zGO8smPMrMuv31hBgA:4 a=Dqp-bWOt5EsA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4908F37A.2040504@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 19:36:26 -0400 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2008: New business: membership alert proposal References: <20081008210111.GX2447@nvg.org> <20081029183251.GW2447@nvg.org> <4908B49F.4080009@lojban.org> <20081029230222.GB1092@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20081029230222.GB1092@digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 614 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members Robin Lee Powell wrote: >>>To avoid confusion, I would like to repeat Robin's statement from >>>last year: >>> >>> >>>>Please recall that the LLG is a business organization, and is >>>>only tangentially in the business of running the Lojban >>>>language. The BPFK is in charge of the actual Lojban parts, and >>>>you need not be a member of the LLG to contribute to the BPFK. >> >> >>If it is in order, I move that it be the normal practice NOT to >>propose or accept for membership any person who has not been >>asked *in advance of the meeting*, with the exception of someone >>who is actively participating in some organizational capacity of >>LLG (organizational being defined in contrast to the "actual >>language parts" as per the statement above). I would like a >>statement to this effect added to the agenda/announcement >>corresponding to Arnt's message above in all future years. > > > That's definately new business; I've renamed the subject. > > Can you be a lot more specific about what you're asking the > organization to do? I'm not following. I liked your statement as quoted above, and would like the text modified to include the proposed policy and included in future agenda posting as Arnt included your statement. Arnt set a quasi-sufficient example of having asked someone in advance of the meeting whether they want to be a member. I would suggest, but not insist, that such an asked-in-advance potential member be added to the members list before the start of the meeting, so that they can a) show interest, and b) truly be able to act as a member immediately upon election. Other than an agenda statement and adding proposed members before the meeting, I don't see anything that has to be done. I don't have a clear definition of what "participating in some organizational capacity" really means, but I am willing to leave it to thr membership to decide. My purpose is to codify a policy, which the members are free to overrule on the spot at any given meeting, but having a stated policy in place might lead to people thinking ahead of time of who should be proposed, and NOT trying to add people to the member list in the middle of a meeting who weren't expecting to be involved. lojbab