Received: from localhost ([::1]:40118 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1evDpB-00020p-Bh; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:08:33 -0700 Received: from mail-yw0-f175.google.com ([209.85.161.175]:33112) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1evDoe-0001zq-Vm for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:08:02 -0700 Received: by mail-yw0-f175.google.com with SMTP id l200so4517478ywb.0 for ; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:08:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=n2MjZGloTD11Y0e5LzNjzJTeaqY/9xkkkd0YXDINR9o=; b=lJOs3KjRwQOiDqSrXW1EnjTC+j+IJgE85y1yg+pWan0ft2Aou29/zdIkR338+9d/dP ev5P9Ytv9nHhkiiu1vAD7aZM+QiVKCOQ170JXslDSjlQQ2ugdv+A1oPo9rG/nGb5Lpxz 5kKKHCJEPv55nycxH0aEXT4QyXhfUKO7FbbzGn17j8aZPy2otv8uKdtLtTT0jipt4GT9 lMFFO2Suercc0EfJKHZTG0sZbNdddgz9/mMSt0UvuCRTDGEthZV9L7JW8/Bfau/bHq3d mRIU/CcUZpBZPA+sQ7nDXmoIngB0gKlq7SLaNmeCh8BXhr+BC3IRPE9NbEBf5euuAeEJ aTDw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=n2MjZGloTD11Y0e5LzNjzJTeaqY/9xkkkd0YXDINR9o=; b=tpHRR3yRZiOMP/vVL9ngSBBsFInu2p1pySNdh9a+ig3AnsUCVofHAeTGND+KD6FR/o 7vCwAzFp09R8VRyCbtvDbPWcbbO7lRcfD5Qqx0urJKtWCvQrmkjbzBbZj6Mt4TTh7Gax iAJH9WQujXDh/Ob/CxZ4rVofsXki0FgG/OfyOrgnTbfdIBc6wwx6S11sixwff6Lhvi4v jHlBvRHAWs7YRAO9CRZxJpNqwb1FYDQRLmKKBq2NlLmgdm4wSuHrxm+MFPvcDiljKMvQ IPW1ksttj/xFzQ1RLFAO1uNZ9BSGNp6bHKJj4wzEe22m22sSw6r8J1hu1BsZwEwhk4p4 /2qw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7F5p0P5TKt6bQ/hCI49Iqn8rLRmf3/bMI49Qhf/AeSvMAWhd83U 7bMdeX4quAAlRxudmPGrgTCWdwYPap1rWfh3hBA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuj2zZztccPgcZBl2XY+ZErB5C3W+wpKOhwVQ5diyZN9iq7L7lroEb1oKvMWK1JSeedeV6UxCtJzQeQa8Swjq8= X-Received: by 2002:a25:bd07:: with SMTP id f7-v6mr3699902ybk.402.1520824073943; Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:07:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <58E7EB12-0A74-4057-95BA-1CA5FB6ED8DF@gmail.com> <8ADAF633-1DEF-4056-A94D-23BD4E1277A3@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Curtis Franks Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 03:07:43 +0000 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Meeting over? 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="===============8012982607557460284==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============8012982607557460284== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b17ede05672e722c" --000000000000b17ede05672e722c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Parliamentary question: If we adjourn, would the President have the power to sorta-retro=C3=A4ctively recognize the passage or failure of motions whi= ch had their voting period concluded prior to the motion to adjourn? Anyway, once the proposal of the motion to adjourn is officially recognized, I vote in favor of adjournment and the other provisions specified by la mukti (as amended by la .lojbab.). ~~~ mi'e .krtis. On Sun, Mar 11, 2018, 16:24 Bob LeChevalier wrote: > On 3/11/2018 1:46 PM, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote: > >> Ok, why aren't you moving? > > > > I don't know if you're pulling my leg, but given that the mabla rarbau > > is ambiguous, let me be clear: I have so moved. > > For the sake of parliamentary procedure, I second this motion, noting > one question as raised below (I believe that motions to adjourn are not > debatable, so I phrase this as a parliamentary inquiry which might > amount to a friendly amendment) > > >> that we end the 2017 meeting, recognizing that selpa'i continues > >> to enjoy the confidence of LLG > >> > >> this needs formalization. What does it mean to have confidence in > >> terms of bylaws? > > > > This doesn't apply to bylaws, because BPFK and its chair are not part o= f > > our bylaws. However, according the renewed charter that we passed for > > BPFK several years ago, members are responsible for recognizing the > > chair of BPFK. If members do not take up this responsibility, it revert= s > > to the board to either recognize an "interim" chair or to let the > > committee fall into a state of suspension. > > > > Although participation in the BPFK chair vote was lower than might be > > desired, more people participated in that vote than any other vote > > during this meeting, at least as recorded by Gregorio, and it was the > > only unanimously affirmative vote. Accordingly, I think it makes sense > > to me that if we have accomplished little else during this meeting, we > > have at least done that. Lest that be in doubt =E2=80=93 I'm not sure i= f the > > outcome was recognized earlier =E2=80=93 I want to make sure that it is > > recognized now, as I move to close. You rightly note that formalization > > is required: That's what I'm seeking to ensure. > > > >> , reaffirming the current composition of the board > >> > >> Isn't it separate from the meeting of all LLG members? > > > > The board meeting is separate from the members' meeting, but it is the > > responsibility of the members to elect a board at each annual meeting. > > Historically, most meetings have re-affirmed the serving board. I'm > > asking that we observe that precedent. > > I believe that part (Board election) of the meeting was in fact > completed, although Karen did not clearly state it as such, in her > message of Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:18:56 -0500: > > I'm now opening the floor to unfinished business as the votes to > > keep the board from last year, without And, seems to be finished. I wis= h > more > people were active in the meeting this year, and the next parts of the > meeting are wonderful places for discussion. > > In other words, as I understand what she said, the newly-elected board > will NOT be last year's Board, but rather last years' board excluding > And. Parliamentary inquiry to this effect. > > If Karen does not respond quickly with a ruling to the contrary, I ask > that you as Secretary accept my interpretation of what she said, in > place of what you proposed in your motion to adjourn, as a friendly > amendment. > > >> , and stating that there is a concern to distinguish official > >> pronouncements of LLG from unofficial discussions on LLG-sponsored > >> channels. > >> > >> Stating how/where? In minutes? > > > > As a pronouncement of this body. It should be reflected in minutes. > > At which point I feel obligated to mildly chide you, mukti, on the basis > of the rest of Karen's same message of Dec 8, and in response solely to > what you say in your motion to adjourn. She wrote: > > I would like each of you to think about whether any unfinished > > business jumps out at you. Without actual meeting minutes it is > > difficult to find these amount all the posts. > > We still have no had minutes for last years' meeting, the lack of which > was what initially derailed this meeting from moving quickly. I gather > that there were good reasons for the lack of minutes when the meeting > started (Karen reported that you were traveling in early November when > she first noted that we were still waiting for your minutes post - the > meeting had been moving along pretty well up until that point), but it > is more than 4 months since then, and people still didn't/don't have > minutes, nor a clear idea of what was old business and what is new > business. In other words, no clear agenda. > We cannot have a short meeting as you envision. in any medium, if > no > one including the president knows what is to be discussed in each phase > of the meeting. When I was president, I moved the meeting along way > too slowly, in order to try to enable people who weren't reading email > every day, but I did start the meeting knowing what the topics were > likely to be, even when we didn't have minutes (I did much better at > moving things along with live meetings and IRC meetings). Karen or > whoever else may serve as President in the future probably needs much > more support to manage things, including a more detailed pre-meeting > agenda as well as minutes done before the meeting, especially if you > want a fast meeting like you say. > > Beyond that, I shut up - since this is a motion to adjourn and I don't > think I should discuss issues until the motion is voted (at which point > the Board can take up what to do for this year's meeting, possibly > including proposing bylaw amendments to make whatever the Board decides > about meetings effective as soon as they can be voted.) > > I await response of Karen, and/or mukti. If no response before then, I > will take the chair as VP in 3 days for the sole purpose of voting on > the motion to adjourn. > > lojbab > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > --000000000000b17ede05672e722c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Parliamentary question: If we adjourn, would the Presiden= t have the power to sorta-retro=C3=A4ctively recognize the passage or failu= re of motions which had their voting period concluded prior to the motion t= o adjourn?

Anyway, once the pr= oposal of the motion to adjourn is officially recognized, I vote in favor o= f adjournment and the other provisions specified by la mukti (as amended by= la .lojbab.).

~~~ mi= 9;e .krtis.

On S= un, Mar 11, 2018, 16:24 Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
On 3/11/2018 1:46 PM, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote:
>> Ok, why aren't you moving?
>
> I don't know if you're pulling my leg, but given that the mabl= a rarbau
> is ambiguous, let me be clear: I have so moved.

For the sake of parliamentary procedure, I second this motion, noting
one question as raised below (I believe that motions to adjourn are not
debatable, so I phrase this as a parliamentary inquiry which might
amount to a friendly amendment)

>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0that we end the 2017 meeting, recognizing that = selpa'i continues
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0to enjoy the confidence of LLG
>>
>> this needs formalization. What does it mean to have confidence in<= br> >> terms of bylaws?
>
> This doesn't apply to bylaws, because BPFK and its chair are not p= art of
> our bylaws. However, according the renewed charter that we passed for<= br> > BPFK several years ago, members are responsible for recognizing the > chair of BPFK. If members do not take up this responsibility, it rever= ts
> to the board to either recognize an "interim" chair or to le= t the
> committee fall into a state of suspension.
>
> Although participation in the BPFK chair vote was lower than might be<= br> > desired, more people participated in that vote than any other vote
> during this meeting, at least as recorded by Gregorio, and it was the<= br> > only unanimously affirmative vote. Accordingly, I think it makes sense=
> to me that if we have accomplished little else during this meeting, we=
> have at least done that. Lest that be in doubt =E2=80=93 I'm not s= ure if the
> outcome was recognized earlier =E2=80=93 I want to make sure that it i= s
> recognized now, as I move to close. You rightly note that formalizatio= n
> is required: That's what I'm seeking to ensure.
>
>> =C2=A0, reaffirming the current composition of the board
>>
>> Isn't it separate from the meeting of all LLG members?
>
> The board meeting is separate from the members' meeting, but it is= the
> responsibility of the members to elect a board at each annual meeting.=
> Historically, most meetings have re-affirmed the serving board. I'= m
> asking that we observe that precedent.

I believe that part (Board election) of the meeting was in fact
completed, although Karen did not clearly state it as such, in her
message of Fri, 8 Dec 2017 18:18:56 -0500:
> I'm now opening the floor to unfinished business as the votes to > keep the board from last year, without And, seems to be finished. I wi= sh more
people were active in the meeting this year, and the next parts of the
meeting are wonderful places for discussion.

In other words, as I understand what she said, the newly-elected board
will NOT be last year's Board, but rather last years' board excludi= ng
And.=C2=A0 Parliamentary inquiry to this effect.

If Karen does not respond quickly with a ruling to the contrary, I ask
that you as Secretary accept my interpretation of what she said, in
place of what you proposed in your motion to adjourn, as a friendly
amendment.

>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0, and stating that there is a concern to distin= guish official
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0pronouncements of LLG from unofficial discussio= ns on LLG-sponsored
>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0channels.
>>
>> Stating how/where? In minutes?
>
> As a pronouncement of this body. It should be reflected in minutes.
At which point I feel obligated to mildly chide you, mukti, on the basis of the rest of Karen's same message of Dec 8, and in response solely to=
what you say in your motion to adjourn.=C2=A0 She wrote:
> I would like each of you to think about whether any unfinished
> business jumps out at you. Without actual meeting minutes it is
> difficult to find these amount all the posts.

We still have no had minutes for last years' meeting, the lack of which=
was what initially derailed this meeting from moving quickly.=C2=A0 I gathe= r
that there were good reasons for the lack of minutes when the meeting
started (Karen reported that you were traveling in early November when
she first noted that we were still waiting for your minutes post - the
meeting had been moving along pretty well up until that point), but it
is more than 4 months since then, and people still didn't/don't hav= e
minutes, nor a clear idea of what was old business and what is new
business.=C2=A0 In other words, no clear agenda.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 We cannot have a short meeting as you envision.= in any medium, if no
one including the president knows what is to be discussed in each phase
of the meeting.=C2=A0 =C2=A0When I was president, I moved the meeting along= way
too slowly, in order to try to enable people who weren't reading email<= br> every day, but I did start the meeting knowing what the topics were
likely to be, even when we didn't have minutes=C2=A0 (I did much better= at
moving things along with live meetings and IRC meetings).=C2=A0 Karen or whoever else may serve as President in the future probably needs much
more support to manage things, including a more detailed pre-meeting
agenda as well as minutes done before the meeting, especially if you
want a fast meeting like you say.

Beyond that, I shut up - since this is a motion to adjourn and I don't<= br> think I should discuss issues until the motion is voted (at which point
the Board can take up what to do for this year's meeting, possibly
including proposing bylaw amendments to make whatever the Board decides
about meetings effective as soon as they can be voted.)

I await response of Karen, and/or mukti.=C2=A0 If no response before then, = I
will take the chair as VP in 3 days for the sole purpose of voting on
the motion to adjourn.

lojbab




_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinf= o/llg-members
--000000000000b17ede05672e722c-- --===============8012982607557460284== 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 --===============8012982607557460284==--