Re: Bylaws Revision: VOTING[4]

On Fri, 28 May 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:

> On Fri, May 28, 1999 at 06:06:36PM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote:
> > Right, I think a relatively high quorum for something as major as
> > adding/removing members of the BOD would be wise. I guess it all depends
> > on what kinds of issues would "normally" be presented for voting on by the
> > general membership. Presumably most voting would take place in the BOD,
> > committees (and short-term "task forces" appointed by them for one-time
> > events), and only major issues or revocations of these other votes would
> > be presented to the membership as a whole (one might call it the
> > "committee of the whole" as they do in Congress in the US). Is that a
> > correct perception of how things will be handled?
>
> That's how *I* envision it. I think that's how Nils expects it to be, too.
> In theory, however, any member can put a resolution out for the body to
> vote on.. even what color grape juice they prefer...

Well, if votes are only demanded from the membership as a whole on
important issues on a relatively infrequent basis, I don't think it would
be too much to ask for members to not be apathetic. If voting were
frequent and on relatively minor matters I would say quorum should be low
because everyone has lives and deadlines and all kinds of things to make
room for on their calendar.
I would not be adverse to making voting at least somewhat mandatory on
important issues, perhaps if a member fails to vote on (say) 80% of the
important votes they are downgraded... Sounds harsh, though. But
apathetic democracies are problematic, since issues usually then get
decided by the extremes, rather than any true majority. But that way,
problems with meeting quorums would be somewhat self-correcting.

Just musing,
Lynn