Received: from localhost ([::1]:51736 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1dGxI8-0001OX-Sb; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 17:51:44 -0700 Received: from mail-ua0-f173.google.com ([209.85.217.173]:34022) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1dGxI7-0001OO-Au for llg-members@lojban.org; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 17:51:44 -0700 Received: by mail-ua0-f173.google.com with SMTP id u10so53330606uaf.1 for ; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 17:51:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=sN0PJVO9qeCt0oCIG1adfo1KEgoXsy1esdEkYyFU4SU=; b=pXqrVNZlvCr0hP9qmAW2/PzB4z4zQBpchblJfO2Irp6cHuE4vVbSZVonDOXSqKvI2m k9CIjchGMtDXs9MJykc2gMNXtDtcOQzhWLCTzRsTh50U50vrsTL9q6Npe85BCpAw37NK FP01NjfoGMbCfobpUWthmrn3MW8Scho6gfunhMZ01bfJ+UZ/azwGzjsvd1bOX33Y6VF2 5Nis/r5o05/MdXkvz/ckd+hwkuu2eHgeHumrUh7zx//PmUi4VivZcskAe8Ofn6u4L3BO 9pdXiFdrQ3xO2h+lwx/DP7y6FpgzvKdj+QjIzXLsQ6jHu60LDWf0uIVG8fMeN8hvieWO Q/ZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=sN0PJVO9qeCt0oCIG1adfo1KEgoXsy1esdEkYyFU4SU=; b=TChNFzknCHpoqcDB67iZacup4EsWH5cKtrTrsBGiqe6Xev7sBi9MrBierKv4N5jUoH rGuRjudTxYkRGf9mdtNofVWTP81mojaj5gyQPoYdqNvqpooU+OE5Y+LYaIBOCmA9ShJ+ f8yHmMzrX9gzINCSXGQe5QVEs6srdkk583ez6n3y9mX97KGMLPKtyaEYELNdLDrOpdQ9 a9Ows0ec1BX6UWie4Vww8NyLPF0zxRYfn6b5AVxcy58ZEbdt63mXSOe8zoqwAC8B/9fW EXpFsfjDge8klD2glqx0xP9zs4jRNPksQ5JWZelv0YjvWpRJkSkuKBHJk6eFU9SJiamw JW3Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAxN4WDEnvSnWHxNmQFUaOF4DPl6dGUcZP0+xlasbvbR6n41xNC 9PLngIKtusjl/mkfu4VOgvZ/OhhbZg== X-Received: by 10.176.86.134 with SMTP id a6mr440821uab.109.1496451096525; Fri, 02 Jun 2017 17:51:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.91.207 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 17:51:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.176.91.207 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Jun 2017 17:51:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0457f7fe-dfd2-2ef6-9402-00d1dd15b239@lojban.org> <19AE0EBA-AD2B-46BA-A03D-F2E77F52D7A8@gmail.com> <1a3e74e0-d5b8-a6be-15ed-239251ebda90@lojban.org> From: Curtis Franks Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 20:51:36 -0400 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.5 X-Spam_score_int: -14 X-Spam_bar: - Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Request for clarification X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4315209608721083987==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============4315209608721083987== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c1b040208a085055103acd8" --94eb2c1b040208a085055103acd8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That is pretty good. I think that w3 have ironed out all doubts. I would like a record of conversations persuant to the meeting, though, while we have things in writing. If I am wrong in my assumption that everybody ultimately came aboard, then someone please correct me. On Jun 2, 2017 10:01, "Riley Martinez-Lynch" wrote: > There was a motion at the 2003 meeting to amend the bylaws to say, in > part, "all communications necessary for the business of the Logical > Language Group, Inc. may be conducted by whatever reasonable and customar= y > means the Board and/or Members see fit, as long as no Members involved in > the communication have objected to that method=E2=80=9D. > > There was a considerable delay in updating the posted bylaws to reflect > that change, but they were updated by the time of the 2014 meeting, and t= he > text of changes were approved by that meeting: > > https://mw.lojban.org/papri/LLG_2014_Annual_Meeting_Minutes > > Are there any remaining doubts? > > =E2=80=94Riley > > > On May 31, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > > On 5/31/2017 3:21 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > > > 2017-05-30 23:42 GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks >>: > > Do the other methods for discussion count as in-person, telephone, > or 'by mails'? If not, then we need to technically conduct the > meeting via email (or another example of those methods, > aforementioned) as we have been or to change the by-laws. The > meeting perhaps would be informally facilitated/quickened via the > other means, but it could not technically be conducted by them > unless they count as one of those three methods. > > > I agree that the only means must be via this mailing list. > > > Since this topic was specifically discussed at an older annual meeting, I > went looking through old minutes and archives. > > The short answer is that I am not right now certain that the posted Bylaw= s > are correct. I've addressed the matter to mukti, who created the current > meeting minutes and Bylaw pages and when he checks, he or I will report a > response. > > If the current bylaws were changed to address this issue (as I think they > were), there is no problem using IRC. > > The 2003 meeting, which is the one in question was conducted using a > combination of IRC and email, and may serve as a model if we want to try = to > use that combination again. But only after we ascertain that the correct > minutes are posted. > > So please hold on until mukti responds. > > lojbab > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --94eb2c1b040208a085055103acd8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That is pretty good. I think that w3 have ironed out all = doubts. I would like a record of conversations persuant to the meeting, tho= ugh, while we have things in writing.

If I am wrong in my assumption that everybody ultimately came abo= ard, then someone please correct me.
=
On Jun 2, 2017 10:01, "Riley Martinez-L= ynch" <shunpiker@gmail.com> wrote:
There was a motion at the 2003 meeting t= o amend the bylaws to say, in part, "all communications necessary for = the business of the=C2=A0Logical Language Group, Inc. may be conducted by w= hatever reasonable and=C2=A0customary means the Board and/or Members see fi= t, as long as no Members involved=C2=A0in the communication have objected t= o that method=E2=80=9D.

There was a considerable d= elay in updating the posted bylaws to reflect that change, but they were up= dated by the time of the 2014 meeting, and the text of changes were approve= d by that meeting:


Are there any remaining doubts?

=E2=80=94R= iley


On May 31,= 2017, at 2:59 PM, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:

On 5/31/2017 3:21 AM, = Gleki Arxokuna wrote:


2017-05-30 23:42= GMT+03:00 Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com
<mailto:curtis.w.franks@gmail.com>>:

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0Do the other methods for discus= sion count as in-person, telephone,
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0or 'by mails&= #39;? If not, then we need to technically conduct the
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0meeting via email (or another example of those methods,
=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0aforementioned) as we have been or to change the by-laws. The
=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0meeting perhaps would be informally facilitated/quickened vi= a the
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0other means, but it could not technically be co= nducted by them
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0unless they count as one of those thr= ee methods.


I agree that the only means must be via this mailing= list.

Since this topic was specifically discussed at a= n older annual meeting, I went looking through old minutes and archives.
The short answer is that I am not right now certain that the posted By= laws are correct.=C2=A0 I've addressed the matter to mukti, who created= the current meeting minutes and Bylaw pages and when he checks, he or I wi= ll report a response.

If the current bylaws were changed to address = this issue (as I think they were), there is no problem using IRC.

Th= e 2003 meeting, which is the one in question was conducted using a combinat= ion of IRC and email, and may serve as a model if we want to try to use tha= t combination again.=C2=A0 But only after we ascertain that the correct min= utes are posted.

So please hold on until mukti responds.

lojb= ab


_______________________________________________
Llg-m= embers mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/llg-members

=
_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-= members

--94eb2c1b040208a085055103acd8-- --===============4315209608721083987== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============4315209608721083987==--