Received: from mail-oa0-f56.google.com ([209.85.219.56]:61413) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XPSZR-0003g4-LV for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 01:39:11 -0700 Received: by mail-oa0-f56.google.com with SMTP id jd19sf2068420oac.21 for ; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 01:39:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=sTC8DZcTZwE4XfyVWkzut7kgVO7Tr6zMjz7uKWRY95Y=; b=Mon9t5UDmna3orBNVdes80BJ6JrehQ2derhgGWHQ942ayileXmcmo6+hRyT6EN4RFr kG46zArdnRif5qd2l2YGyxNDYV4hEFDoCJXe8jJxcRd5tmr4ar8rK4AfaLA/YUGKpm+R mwt4ChPW1sW9LHeD8b/jkTgYAp+L9sN4Z0xN7Hn132LFeXEeFJLlm8XiYQKXZu65Dar8 t3m20c/p7y1Pj33kkQopuzPBJZBS0Gu0XmoMjb95DpWXNNLUbh05nn0Xd/YG/Cs7YFk/ oAI24huS5ft33THYPn8ab4i5DpWuMusrPhTmkXu9/L72aPRm6KbMRpiheaLcMVcEZH00 AL5w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=sTC8DZcTZwE4XfyVWkzut7kgVO7Tr6zMjz7uKWRY95Y=; b=lXSBJJGn159jbRm12AlutmUTfQd2xKPV0+fwpvCE8OwoN+QZ7fsPoV7uba0PLuDwPq ZBYXuRDOCRLpk5IyZSu/6M6PeExhXmGHannKeLnn4hJL7wwPpr6HONPna9vLtDPnn8cZ ac/v/GeAqNU5ImcHdN5WvzKzjH+J3SyfEF7ja9xAileY5EJmx0oZWkqUmft9dnKB3jp/ tArQRfbNgJyhs0j5npLXfehX/lpEncUmgtzTpYSAxtI3+SGhfCDJ0tNDRi/Ip0pbQiK/ hCkbJA87mE2LxwZ4TYOS4v2nEu8v3qjjvplQJYniWbSpdvbWBqPOjvVucu2on+7y/jjn m+VQ== X-Received: by 10.50.114.69 with SMTP id je5mr55558igb.1.1409819943014; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 01:39:03 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.51.16.66 with SMTP id fu2ls3747872igd.0.canary; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 01:39:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.66.135 with SMTP id f7mr52730igt.3.1409819942481; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 01:39:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 01:39:00 -0700 (PDT) From: mukti To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <9639d2db-2ce0-4305-8fcf-7901dbc4d798@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <54073C81.9080409@lojban.org> References: <5e04bb30-1271-4e0b-b80a-0ab189b652fe@googlegroups.com> <54073C81.9080409@lojban.org> Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Verifying LLG's current bylaws MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: shunpiker@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_949_653726464.1409819940713" X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - ------=_Part_949_653726464.1409819940713 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Thank you for addressing these bylaw amendments. If I understood your response, the following amendments should be provisionally enrolled, and ultimately finalized if there is no objection from the Secretary, parliamentarian or membership: 1. Membership Assumption amendment (2003 Agenda 9H2) 2. Virginia Registered Agent amendment (2003 Agenda 9J) 3. Parliamentary Procedure amendments (2003 Agenda 9G1* and 9G2) 4. Communications amendments (2003 Agenda 9G1* and 9G3) 5. Purpose amendment (2003 Agenda 9C) * Original agenda item 9G1 was split, with Parliamentary and Communications issues receiving separate consideration I drafted a revision of the bylaws including these amendments in anticipation that the Secretary or someone else empowered to do so will eventually want to replace the currently posted bylaws with the revised version. Regarding my request to have the Membership Qualifications amendment (2003 Agenda 9B1) reconsidered at the 2014 AGM, I agree that there are indications are that the language of the motion was passed as a resolution of principle, rather than as a bylaw amendment. But that distinction is complicated by the fact that the wording is very close to bylaw language (why make a resolution explicitly at odds with the bylaws?), and the fact that so many bylaw amendments passed in the same session were never enrolled. On the other hand, if my concerns about this motion are not shared by members, I'm happy to move on to other matters. mi'e la mukti mu'o -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ------=_Part_949_653726464.1409819940713 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you for addressing these bylaw amendments. If I= understood your response, the following amendments should be provisionally= enrolled, and ultimately finalized if there is no objection from the Secre= tary, parliamentarian or membership:

  1. Membership A= ssumption amendment (2003 Agenda 9H2)
  2. Virginia Registered Agent amendment (2003 Agenda 9J)
  3. Parliamentary Procedure am= endments (2003 Agenda 9G1* and 9G2)
  4. Communications amendments (2003 Agenda 9G1* and 9G3)<= br>
  5. Purpose amendment (2003 Agen= da 9C)

* Original agenda item 9G1 was split= , with Parliamentary and Communications issues receiving separate considera= tion

I drafted a revision of t= he bylaws including these amendments in anticipation that the= Secretary or someone else empowered to do so will eventually want to repla= ce the currently posted bylaws with the revised vers= ion.

Regarding my request to have the Membership Qualifications amendment (2003 Age= nda 9B1) reconsidered at the 2014 AGM, I agree that there are indications are that the language of the motio= n was passed as a resolution of principle, rather than as a bylaw amendment= . But that distinction is co= mplicated by the fact that the wording is very close to bylaw language (why make a resolution explicitl= y at odds with the bylaws?), and the fact that so many bylaw amendments pas= sed in the same session were never enrolled. On the other hand, if my concerns about this motion are not sha= red by members, I'm happy to move on to other matters.

mi'e la mukti mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http:= //groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_949_653726464.1409819940713--