board77

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

Hobby, I suppose I could help nudge things along when necessary. Eru knows that I have shown a talent for that.

To put it very mildly indeed.

Holby,

The only impossible task looks like deciding on a name for the charter. You know how we can diddle with words.

By the way, isn't it time to put on a more pleasant face?


Alandriel,

The page looks great.


Imperious Leader,

If we promise to behave?


Cerin,

I will miss you.

Holby, it's probably going to take more than two weeks ... we all need a break right now and I thought we would reconvene perhaps when the discussion period is over and the charter items will be in vote.

I'm guessing that it will take 3-4 weeks beyond that if we work at a no-pressure pace. Juts an estimate, given the unexpected things people have found contentious in the past.

It would be a good idea to invite some new people in even if you decide to hang around.

Jn

Another item that needs doing:

The ToE sticky needs overview and possible amendment, as we have decided that its contents should be included in the email sent to ToE applicants and agreed to before they have access to the forum.

Should I start that conversation in ToE or should it happen in Business, as only a handful have access to ToE?

I think it would be best for the TOE posters to do that job, Imp. If they want someone else to review it, to make sure it complies with Article 6, we can have the committee look at it. But TOE posters will probably want to have first crack at drafting it.

(Btw, thanks for posting the Article into the document thread.)

Jn

No problem.

I agree that ToE posters should draft it. I hope they agree also.

May I also suggest that all the handbooks are stored also on the geocities site? All documents thus would be in one single place.
However, I would not link to the handbooks from the geocities frontpage directly but only from here; e.g. in the sticky for jurors embed a link to the page on geocities.

I'm going to open a seperate thread for all of this in a minute and will also ask for a group (3 people if possible) to come forward and help with re-reading the whole thing as it goes up and point out any inconsistencies, typos etc. I can't do it all alone

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢

One more thing that kept nagging me at the back of my mind.

With all these upcoming discussions, additions to the charter and subsequent ratification by the membership at large... how is that going to work with the new members as of when we open? Do they immediately get to have voting rights on these issues? Or will a new 'group' be created for them? How would we keep on determining a quorum with continuous influx of members?

I just thought I wanted to bring this up before we start expanding and filling in.

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢

I was wondering who was going to raise this issue.

I am firmly in favor of giving new members immediate voting rights. The only question then would become what to we do about the quorum requirement. Many people may register put not participate at all. I think we will need to either keep the quorum at 39, eliminate it altogether, or only raise it a relatively small amount once we have new members.

I think we can legitimately leave it at 39 for the charter process, as was said at the beginning. And during that process we'll figure out how future quorums will be calculated, right?

I agree that members should have the right to vote at once—to say otherwise would be to create "second-class citizens," and the feeling of the board has always been very much against that.

It wouldn't be inappropriate, though, to add a request at the beginning of those votes that new members be sure they're familiar with the issues and have read the discussion thread before voting.

I think it would be a waste of time to talk now about changing the quorum requirements for ratification, but we definitely need to change them for binding votes of the membership. We'll deal with that when we get to it.

Jn

Immediate voting rights, yes, no need to change the quorum just now.

Agreed.

What Anthriel said.

Is it all right with everyone if we reconvene this coming Friday, June 17? All of the items up for ratification will have gone to vote by then.

Jn

Yes, that is what I had in mind as well, Jn. Although I'm sure some idle chatter will go on between now and then.

Thoughts about future quorums...

The quorum we have now is 39 members. What percent is that out of how many members? Will we follow that percentage in the future? We may very well have quite a few people enroll and never ever take part in this place. Look at TORC's numbers and how many people are actually active. In a way, I can't help but be worried about meeting future quorums.

Friday works for me (always assuming that I survive Thursday).

Quorums are going to be tough to figure. We already have members who have never posted or who haven't posted since last fall. A possibility is basing it on a percentage of the number of members who have more than X number of posts, or perhaps of members who have made at least one post since a particular date. The first is easy to find from the memberlist; the second I think would be trickier.

But we'll be discussing this in detail later, I think?

Those are some good ideas to start with. Makes me feel a bit better.

As for this Friday...I know I probably won't be around until Sunday or Monday. I just generally don't get on here much on weekends. But I'm usually a passive observer anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Prim: A possibility is basing it on a percentage of the number of members who have more than X number of posts

I was thinking along those lines, too, since we don't have info about last posting date for members. But we will discuss this for amendments and binding votes of the membership. (Which reminds me - I think the agenda has to be updated for that topic.)

Jn

edit: nope, did it already