Re: #04: Electronic Meetings

We recently approved this paragraph:

"There shall be no quorum requirement for a meeting to take place.
However, no individual vote taken by the board may be binding without the
participation of at least half the board members. If two-thirds of the
board members participate, then a simple majority shall be required for
passage, unless the item being voted on sets a higher requirement. If
fewer than two-thirds of the board members participate, then unanimous
approval of the members present with no abstentions shall be required."

If we add the following sentence at the end:

"Votes may be conducted in any way the Board sees fit, provided it
meets the above mentionned conditions."

And the following sentence at the beginning:

"A meeting is any event, occasion, or discussion where at least one vote
is held among members of the board and sufficient members vote for that
vote to be considered binding."

Then the board is given the ability to function using irc, email, phones,
real life, or voodoo magic, provided at least half of the board members
cast a ballot.

That's not precisely worded to fit with the above paragraph but the
meaning can stand.

---
David "cdlu" Graham in Guelph, Ontario
cdlu(at)railfan(dot)ca - SMS: +1 519 760 1409

On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, John Goerzen wrote:

> Where do we stand on this issue?
>
> My own position is that we need to explicitly grant permission for
> non-real-time meetings in the bylaws, and clarify the meaning of quorum for
> them. What do others think? Should I draw up a proposal or is someone else
> doing that?
>
> Thanks,
> John
>