From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Dec 02 17:49:31 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 3 Dec 2002 01:49:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 87989 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 01:49:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2002 01:49:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 01:49:30 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18J2Bl-0003t7-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:49:29 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18J2Bh-0003sn-00; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:49:25 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:49:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.112]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18J2Bc-0003sJ-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 17:49:20 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-55-180.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.55.180]) by lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 323C25B68A for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 02:48:48 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 01:50:57 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20021202205558.GI1520@digitalkingdom.org> X-archive-position: 2924 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Robin: > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 12:23:20PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > I don't think it is right for the Board to formulate policy that seeks > > a mandate without first consulting the community on what that policy > > should be. I don't even think it's right for the voting members to do > > so either. > > Then what the hell is the *point* of having a board? I've been wondering about that, and also about the point of having voting and nonvoting members. I gather it has something to do with DC legal requirements, but I'm not really clued up. I suppose that if we were designing our political systems from scratch I would expect the Board to be elected to represent the members' interests, with Board members chosen for their industry, probity, representativeness, etc. -- in other words, pretty much as at present, except you'd expect them to consult the membership on important issues with long-term repercussions. > Yeesh What does "yeesh" mean? > > I doubt the policy will be voted down. When will we know whether it > > has been or not? Perhaps the best way to proceed would be for me (or > > someone) to put to the members meeting a proposal to solicit feedback > > and discussion on the policy, revise the policy in the light of > > feedback, and then submit it to general vote. In the meantime, a Yes > > vote could be taken as general approval for the policy, without any > > implication that the policy in its specifics is optimal > > Umm, there's this thing called 'change' that you may have heard of. If > this passes, and you have an objection to a specific aspect, you are > more than welcome to call for a change at the member's meeting I don't really understand the protocols and procedures. I'm not sure whether what I was describing is technically 'change'. If I want to put forward a motion that the Board consult the membership, do I call that 'change'? I'm pretty confused -- are the by-laws online anywhere? --And.