From dlb@patriot.net Fri Aug 14 14:13:38 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.patriot.net ([209.249.176.77]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mc45c-0006fU-SX for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:13:38 -0700 Received: from www.patriot.net (pierce.patriot.net [209.249.176.14]) (Authenticated sender: dlb) by smtp.patriot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D24FF58093 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:09:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 75.75.38.246 (SquirrelMail authenticated user dlb) by www.patriot.net with HTTP; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:13:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <53391.75.75.38.246.1250284405.squirrel@www.patriot.net> In-Reply-To: <20090814153309.GA2912@nvg.org> References: <20090628201339.GG23324@nvg.org> <20090808123929.GQ2912@nvg.org> <20090814143122.GZ2912@nvg.org> <20090814153309.GA2912@nvg.org> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:13:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2009: Election of the Board From: dlb@patriot.net To: llg-members@lojban.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.9a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis X-archive-position: 719 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: dlb@patriot.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:08:20AM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: >> Refresh my memory, please. Does everyone need to be re-nominated, or >> would inaction leave the same board in place? > > If you want to have the current slate of directors re-elected, you can > nominate them. There is no default course of action here. I have seen the following messages as well; however, I don't want to let one thing slip by under the rubric of "default". I therefore ask unanimous consent to a heartfelt expression of thanks to the current board of directors, and to their re-election by acclamation. If I understand the rules on unanimous consent, one objection shoots this down. I hope that you, Matt and John, will consider this a friendly amendment to your own unanimous consent request. The Board should at least know that those lazy bums among us appreciate their hard work. Dave Barton