Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy

From: "Logical Language Group, Inc." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 02:12:48 -0500

At 01:50 AM 12/3/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
>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.

Virginia actually, but this applies anywhere in the country in some way or 
another. Legally speaking, the Board of Directors has the legal 
responsibility for compliance with the law. If an organization gets sued, 
it is either the Board or the members/stockholders that are responsible, 
usually the Board. The state doesn't care who or how many members we have, 
but I have to annually report the members of the Board, or we legally cease 
to exist. Likewise, the Board is what the Federal law cares about in 
determining that we are tax-free. As management types, we cannot legally 
be lining our pockets with your donations %^).

Pragmatically, we have a Board because, especially pre-Internet, it was 
damnably difficult to get all of the members communicating well enough to 
make decisions; even with the Internet it can be tough - we had weeklong 
gaps in the Board discussion because of people who couldn't reply in a 
timely manner). Also committees or groups in general with more than 7 
members seldom get things done efficiently (the one potential problem with 
byfy is if every volunteer member insists on active participation in every 
nuance of every definition); they need a steering group to make quick 
decisions, leaving deliberations to the larger body.

>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.

That is precisely what we do. But sometimes the consultation has to be 
streamlined.

> > Yeesh
>What does "yeesh" mean?

Attitudinal of exasperation, I think. I daresay that Robin needs lojban 
attitudinals for "rock" and "yeesh". then we'd understand him %^)

> > 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?

Yes. But there is no provision for members to act formally in between the 
annual meetings because the legal requirements for a special meeting are 
that ALL members including those not on line be informed in advance of all 
issues to be addressed, so that they can be present in person or by proxy.

In practice the members will undoubtedly be consulted on decisions, since 
the members want to be consulted, and since they have (and will continue) 
elected Board members who WILL consult with them. In this case, we did not 
start out with a major policy issue, but rather a question of resolving 
conflict between things we had said in the past in light of current 
questions raised by the members - by limiting it to the Board, we TRIED to 
keep the issue small, and transient - I don't think anyone expected that we 
were making a decision that would have implications beyond the next annual 
meeting. But the way the discussion ensued, a long term policy (offering 
the members/community the chance to feedback) was the only consensus 
approach I could see. (Originally, I was trying to keep it an executive 
and informal decision, as in my answers to Adam on Hebrew translation back 
in August, but the Board felt that baseline policy was not something that 
should be done ad hoc by me.)

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org