From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Aug 23 13:12:10 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao105.cox.net ([68.230.240.47]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MfJQ8-0005Dz-0J for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:12:10 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao105.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20090823201201.FOGA11342.eastrmmtao105.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:12:01 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([70.187.235.94]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id XwC11c00822sj6m02wC1o4; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:12:02 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=FszAZ1wbbOAA:10 a=RBkbBZBwRTlFM6q2AloA:9 a=CZ9h4YbHMal-QQ9msX0A:7 a=uHq32HcZnJ5W5cwwnwjgb-0tTB0A:4 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4A91A303.9050801@lojban.org> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:13:55 -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 2009: Point of order References: <20090628201339.GG23324@nvg.org> <20090808123929.GQ2912@nvg.org> <20090814143122.GZ2912@nvg.org> <20090814153309.GA2912@nvg.org> <53391.75.75.38.246.1250284405.squirrel@www.patriot.net> <20090822115557.GD5073@nvg.org> <4A912D5F.7090405@lojban.org> <20090823160733.GH5073@nvg.org> In-Reply-To: <20090823160733.GH5073@nvg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 740 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 Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: >>Point of order. >> >>The Bylaws specify an agenda order, one that was taken sufficiently >>seriously that in prior years, we went to great lengths to amend it to >>put election of new members ahead of the Board election. We should >>follow that agenda. > > The AGM has been processing the agenda items concurrently for at least the past three years. It seems to have worked well in the past. Why do you now think that this is a problem? I don't especially have a problem with posting all the agenda items simultaneously. It is the order in which they are wrapped up that bothers me (which is why I held off on the point of order until now - I wasn't sure my point of order was in order until the Board election was declared complete). I of course am bothered by the absolute silence among the bulk of membership for several days now. We switched from having the meeting on IRC (which had lots of participation that continued for a surprisingly long number of hours) to using the members' list in order to make it easier for more people to participate. But there is no participation at all, and the members meeting seems to have become something to simply check off each year as a pro forma legal event, rather than something that involves the community in governing the organization. But that is, I think, not relevant to my point of order, but rather to the question of how future meetings are to be conducted. In the past two years, the Board election was not concluded until near the end of the meeting - in 2007, about 3 minutes before the meeting was adjourned. The 2006 meeting was held all in one thread, and is thus a little more difficult for me to see when the Board election took place. >>The Board election cannot take place (or at least in the informality of >>the current on-line meetings, cannot be concluded), until after the >>prior agenda items have taken place. > > Why? The reason for the agenda order is (as I understand it): attendance (assures that we have a quorum) minutes (so we know what, if any old business there is) reports (informs the members as to what the Board and its officers have done during the past year - how can the general membership know that the Board has done its job when no one on the Board has said what has happened organizationally) removal of old members (which usually requires an attendance report) new membership (these two ensure that the set of those participating in the Board election are current and maximized - which is why this item was moved ahead of the Board election in a bylaw change) Board election Old business (which needs to be identified based on last years minutes) New business (which might require the officer reports to identify what issues exist) I can see the ability to concurrently start many of these at the same time, but to conclude them out of order forces people to make decisions based on missing information. >>It hasn't even clearly been >>decided whether the one new proposed member has been officially accepted. > > Did you not get my e-mail yesterday? You sent it 3 minutes after the message on the election, so I hadn't seen it when I raised my point of order (hence supporting my statement above on missing information from out of order agenda postings). The comment of mine is no longer correct, however, and therefore withdrawn. >>I note specifically that NOT ONE OFFICER has made a report to the >>membership (and Robin begged off doing so temporarily due to lack of >>time). So, especially in light of the "amendment" to give thanks to the >>Board, it kinda would be nice if that Board reported to the membership >>just what it is that the membership should be thankful for. > > I agree. I am still awaiting the President's report, the Secretary/Treasurer's report, and the BPFK committee report. We also should have a statement of what members are present (I don't know who is on the members list, and in the past year I believe we have seen postings on both member and board lists by non-members, so I am not sure that the membership of the lists is necessarily the membership of the organization) We also need the minutes of the last meeting. Robin may have posted them long ago, but I don't spot any notice in my archived email. >>If there is any dispute on this, I ask the opinion of the parliamentarian. > > As do I. lojbab