References: <56FA169C.8070702@lojban.org>
To: llg-members@lojban.org
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Message-ID: <57001FFF.4060601@lojban.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2016 15:39:43 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56FA169C.8070702@lojban.org>
Subject: Re: [Llg-members] 2015 Annual Meeting - Old Business;
 Voting on Curtis Frank's motion on BPFK and CLL.
Precedence: list
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

On 3/29/2016 1:46 AM, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG wrote:
> Discussion has gone silent.  Craig's motion seems to fail for lack of a
> second.
>
> Curtis has moved, and gleki has seconded the following.
>> In order for clarity, I hereby move that: Whensoever a BPFK exists,
>> whensoever a CLL exists, and whensoever a Lojban language is to have any
>> defining standards in whole or in part, then the BPFK is charged with
>> maintaining the CLL as the defining standard(s) for the language or any
>> of its versions as a whole or in part, including but not limited to its
>> grammar. The BPFK is to have the authority necessary for the achieving
>> of these goals, as determined and prescribed solely by this body (the
>> LLG). This motion is not intended to make assertions as to the merits or
>> implementation of the existence or practice of any of these conditions;
>> it merely defines one of possibly many roles (for) which any
>> organization which is to act as a BPFK will be responsible in fulfilling
>> and conducting - as well as the implicit establishment of minimal powers
>> associated with its acting in that capacity.
>>
>> Furthermore, I move that: Under the same conditions, the BPFK is the
>> unique organization so charged and endowed with the authority pursuant
>> to these goals.
>
> I am taking the second paragraph as dependent on the first, and thus the
> whole as a single motion.  That seems to be how gleki understood it in
> his second, which quoted the whole thing.
>
> And has voiced an objection, so we need to actually vote.  I am allowing
> until end of day Thursday for voting.  But if a majority of the
> membership in favor or opposed has spoken before then, I will
> allow/encourage us to move on without waiting for the end of the voting
> period (while still accepting votes).  So please speak up.

The motion has failed (whether or not I accept the withdrawal of the 
motion).

Discussion of old business topics should continue.  If no one else 
proposes any discussion, mukti should proceed with his discussion of 
sustaining membership.

I note that sustaining (non-voting) memberships have been previously 
authorized by a bylaw amendment, but nothing has been put in place, in 
part because the Board hasn't been much more diligent about getting 
things done than the voting membership.

Under US tax law, our organization is established such that money for 
these memberships are considered US-tax-deductible donations to the 
extent that they exceed the value of anything given in return.

lojbab


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