Re: Bylaws committee status

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:53:53AM -0500, Taral wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:45:31AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > For those that have not been active for some time, I would like you to
> > either 1) commit to being more active in the futurex, or 2) tender your
> > resignation so we may appoint more active committee members -- either one
> > effective immediately.
>
> I'm here. I think the recent stagnation was mostly because there was
> nobody to say when discussion was done and turn something into a
> proposal.

Yes, that's my fault, and I apologize; I've been out of state twice this
month with some e-mail access but not much time.

> ObProcess: It is interesting that RRONR states that this is the very
> reason modern parliamentary process requires a motion before discussion.
> Early processes had the Speaker distilling discussion into a motion, but
> that doesn't work nearly as well, as we have seen. Do we want to change
> our process?

I'm open to that. I suppose we could have each person take a different
option from the list, look into it, and propose something that we could then
discuss.

-- John