--- On Sat, 3/7/09, Mary Read <m.k.read@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > As a relatively new and heretofore 'inactive' > member, but one who reads posts with interest > and culls very helpful information from them, > I would like to voice a concern about the present > discussion regarding which members should > "qualify" to vote. It seems to me that some of > those who are able to regularly attend meetings > are suggesting that the group excludes those that > cannot. Not only that, but to possibly exclude > those who do not regularly contribute to posts. You make a good argument for maintaining online membership as the basis for voting rights, Mary (some people may find it inconvenient, uncomfortable or downright impossible to attend meetings) and Doug Rogers appears to have supplied the answer to my concern about distinguishing even passive participants from those lapsed members who no longer receive or want to take part at all (traffic on the Freelists forum goes out automatically to all listed members, and Doug delists any from whom three consecutive MUGLO mail messages are bounced back, unless they've explained that and indicated that they want to remain members). I have yet to be convinced, though, that members who don't participate AT ALL in the group's activities, whether at meetings or online, should have any voice in deciding what those activities should be, or how they should be conducted. For that matter, I don't see why they would want one. I should add that I would consider your own infrequent but always rational contributions to our sometimes over-intense discussions to be more than sufficient entitlement to voting rights. There are probably a couple of dozen others, too, who chime in rarely but usefully. No one wants to exclude you: We want more like you. --- MUGLO information at <http://www.freewebs.com/muglo> Manage your account options at <//www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi>