Re: #04: Electronic Meetings [CALL FOR VOTES]

[ chairman hat on ]

The below bylaws amendment is up for vote among bylaws committee members.

Committee members, please reply to this message with your vote. Yes or no
only, please.

This vote will end one week from today or when three yes or three no
votes are received, since the outcome will then be certain.

This takes David's proposed text and adds the word "fair" in the last
paragraph and a definition of participation. If that is objectionable, vote
NO and we'll post a new version.

[ proposal follows ]

This proposal is drafted as an amendment on top of the quorum issues
amendment (#03) at
http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-bylaws/2003/000199.html.

In front of the new text added by that proposal ("There shall be no quorum
requirement..."), add this new paragraph:

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.

Append the following to the end of the paragraph approved in #03:

The participation requirement is met only when a given board member
votes or expresses a wish to abstain on a specific issue.

And add this new paragraph after that:

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

I vote YES.

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:36:29AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> [ chairman hat on ]
>
> The below bylaws amendment is up for vote among bylaws committee members.
>
> Committee members, please reply to this message with your vote. Yes or no
> only, please.
>
> This vote will end one week from today or when three yes or three no
> votes are received, since the outcome will then be certain.
>
> This takes David's proposed text and adds the word "fair" in the last
> paragraph and a definition of participation. If that is objectionable, vote
> NO and we'll post a new version.
>
> [ proposal follows ]
>
> This proposal is drafted as an amendment on top of the quorum issues
> amendment (#03) at
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-bylaws/2003/000199.html.
>
> In front of the new text added by that proposal ("There shall be no quorum
> requirement..."), add this new paragraph:
>
> 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.
>
> Append the following to the end of the paragraph approved in #03:
>
> The participation requirement is met only when a given board member
> votes or expresses a wish to abstain on a specific issue.
>
> And add this new paragraph after that:
>
> Votes may be conducted in any fair way the Board sees fit, provided it
> meets the above mentionned conditions.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-bylaws mailing list
> Spi-bylaws(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-bylaws

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:36:29AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> [ chairman hat on ]
>
> The below bylaws amendment is up for vote among bylaws committee members.
>
> Committee members, please reply to this message with your vote. Yes or no
> only, please.
>
> This vote will end one week from today or when three yes or three no
> votes are received, since the outcome will then be certain.

That works, since the new requirements for quorum prevent the abuses
that I can think of.

I vote FOR.

--
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 10:36:29AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> [ chairman hat on ]
>
> The below bylaws amendment is up for vote among bylaws committee members.
>
> Committee members, please reply to this message with your vote. Yes or no
> only, please.

Although I think the word "fair" complicates things due to varying
opinions about what is or isn't fair, this is overall good, and in the
interest of time, I vote YES, YES, INDEED, THAT SOUNDS GOOD, WHAT, WHAT,
CHEERIO.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)debian(dot)org

While no longer numerically necessary, I do vote in favour with
reservations.

"Fair" is a highly interpretable term and may result in some debate or
confusion in the future.

---
David "cdlu" Graham
Guelph, Ontario
cdlu(at)railfan(dot)ca

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, John Goerzen wrote:

> [ chairman hat on ]
>
> The below bylaws amendment is up for vote among bylaws committee members.
>
> Committee members, please reply to this message with your vote. Yes or no
> only, please.
>
> This vote will end one week from today or when three yes or three no
> votes are received, since the outcome will then be certain.
>
> This takes David's proposed text and adds the word "fair" in the last
> paragraph and a definition of participation. If that is objectionable, vote
> NO and we'll post a new version.
>
> [ proposal follows ]
>
> This proposal is drafted as an amendment on top of the quorum issues
> amendment (#03) at
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-bylaws/2003/000199.html.
>
> In front of the new text added by that proposal ("There shall be no quorum
> requirement..."), add this new paragraph:
>
> 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.
>
> Append the following to the end of the paragraph approved in #03:
>
> The participation requirement is met only when a given board member
> votes or expresses a wish to abstain on a specific issue.
>
> And add this new paragraph after that:
>
> Votes may be conducted in any fair way the Board sees fit, provided it
> meets the above mentionned conditions.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-bylaws mailing list
> Spi-bylaws(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-bylaws
>

[ chairman hat on ]

The below proposal has passed and voting has finished, the outcome being
certain.

Taral, you can go ahead and update your bylaws page.

The following people voted YES:

John Goerzen
Taral
Jimmy Kaplowitz
David Graham

There were zero NO votes heard.

The status page at http://gopher.quux.org:70/devel/bylaws/status.html will
be updated shortly.

-- John

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:36:29AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> [ chairman hat on ]
>
> The below bylaws amendment is up for vote among bylaws committee members.
>
> Committee members, please reply to this message with your vote. Yes or no
> only, please.
>
> This vote will end one week from today or when three yes or three no
> votes are received, since the outcome will then be certain.
>
> This takes David's proposed text and adds the word "fair" in the last
> paragraph and a definition of participation. If that is objectionable, vote
> NO and we'll post a new version.
>
> [ proposal follows ]
>
> This proposal is drafted as an amendment on top of the quorum issues
> amendment (#03) at
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-bylaws/2003/000199.html.
>
> In front of the new text added by that proposal ("There shall be no quorum
> requirement..."), add this new paragraph:
>
> 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.
>
> Append the following to the end of the paragraph approved in #03:
>
> The participation requirement is met only when a given board member
> votes or expresses a wish to abstain on a specific issue.
>
> And add this new paragraph after that:
>
> Votes may be conducted in any fair way the Board sees fit, provided it
> meets the above mentionned conditions.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-bylaws mailing list
> Spi-bylaws(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-bylaws

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:49:47PM -0400, David Graham wrote:
> While no longer numerically necessary, I do vote in favour with
> reservations.
>
> "Fair" is a highly interpretable term and may result in some debate or
> confusion in the future.

I agree. However, I was not prepared to support "ANY" method with no
qualifiers. I'm prepared to compromise and let them choose any fair method,
though.

At least this provides some mechanism for saying, "hey, letting only those
the agree with you vote isn't allowed" :-)

-- John

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 02:44:55PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Taral, you can go ahead and update your bylaws page.

Updated. Anyone care to comment on the radio buttons?

--
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