Bylaws committee status

Hello,

As you know, this committee is set to expire on July 1. We are to produce
our report by that date.

We are not anywhere near being done, though. Several of us, myself
included, have found less time to devote to this than we'd like in the last
month or so (and my two vacations didn't help move things along either.)

I have therefore proposed a resolution to the Board that would do two
things: 1) extend our charter until January 15, 2004; and 2) give the
chairman of the committee the ability to accept resignations and appoint new
members to fill vacancies.

I have also informed the Board that we will provide them with our
recommendations to date as of the July 1 date originally contemplated.
This will consist of Taral's markup. I expect that it will consist of what
we have approved this far, plus the result of the vote now in progress.

I expect that the Board will be able to ratify this on or before the July 1
meeting, and don't expect problems getting it to pass. Therefore, we can
continue working as usual for the time being.

However, I would like to extend a request:

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 have learned that working with one or two people down is difficult, so I
would like to make sure that all five of us are present and accounted for.

-- John

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.

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?

--
Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
"Most parents have better things to do with their time than take care of
their children." -- Me

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