[muglo] Re: Constitution
- From: Gerhard Kuhn <gerhardk@xxxxxxx>
- To: muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:05:32 -0400
I would say that any organization should be governed by it's members
but there has to be a definition as to what constitutes a member. In
my opinion someone signing up up two years ago posts 3 questions and
then is never heard from is not an active member and should not be
afforded the right to vote. If someone chooses to lurk that is there
business but there should be cost to that behavior and if they are
unable to vote because they can't meet a criteria that requires little
effort to meet then too bad. There should be cut off in
participation i.e. 6 months of silence equals no vote, resume
participation you are reinstated as a fully active member 1 or 2
months later. I know it is not likely that someone would want to
stack the votes in his/her favour (I believe most (maybe all) of our
position are filled by acclamation) but if it is defined there is no
cause for argument later. It is always preferable to have ground
rules in place and then when a sticky situation arises you can refer
to them to resolve it.
Gerhard
gerhardk@xxxxxxx
On 16-Mar-09, at 5:06 PM, Bob McDaniel wrote:
> Just a minor item pertaining to Doug B's constitutional reform pdf:
> Just as in Article 5.1 we have neither "full" nor "in good standing"
> members (no categories of membership), so, for consistency, in the
> amendment to Article 4.0 we, presumably, have no "active" members.
---
MUGLO information at <http://www.freewebs.com/muglo>
Manage your account options at <//www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi>
Other related posts:
