From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Thu Nov 13 14:16:05 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:16:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L0kTt-0002e0-TC for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:16:05 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:16:05 -0800 From: Robin Lee Powell To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2008: Election of the Board Message-ID: <20081113221605.GN18173@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-members@lojban.org References: <20081008210111.GX2447@nvg.org> <20081029184024.GY2447@nvg.org> <4908AF51.4080707@lojban.org> <20081104191149.GU2447@nvg.org> <20081104205011.GQ522@mercury.ccil.org> <20081104212821.GZ2447@nvg.org> <20081112211004.GK18173@digitalkingdom.org> <20081113080721.GA6699@nvg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081113080721.GA6699@nvg.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-archive-position: 685 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 Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:07:21AM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 01:10:04PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:28:21PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen > > wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 03:50:11PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > > > Arnt Richard Johansen scripsit: > > > > > > > > > This is the proposed slate of directors. (John declined > > > > > re-election.) > > > > > > > > > > * Robin Lee Powell * Robert LeChevalier * Matt Arnold * > > > > > Arnt Richard Johansen > > > > > > > > > > These will be re-elected by general consent if there are > > > > > no objections. > > > > > > > > The Board normally acts by consensus, but I suggest there be > > > > a fifth director in case a vote is ever actually called. > > > > > > Why would this be a problem? A tie vote is not a problem that > > > must be resolved; it simply means that the motion failed to > > > receive a majority vote. In the above case, it would mean that > > > 2 directors can block a motion, vs. 3 directors in the case of > > > a board with 5 members. Hardly a major difference, if you ask > > > me. > > > > Either way, please declare an acclimation time frame, so we can > > submit our paperwork. > > Are you saying that we can submit the paperwork before the AGM is > completed? Certainly. All that's required is that the board be elected, and that the board itself elect officers. > In any case, I think people have had more than enough time to > voice their objections. The vote will close in 24 hours. -Robin -- They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something other than the default outcome?" -- http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/