[muglo] Re: Constitution

  • From: Theresa Roth <theresaroth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: MUGLO <muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 08:08:16 -0500

While I second the idea that voting should be online, it could be
problematic trying to get the ³majority of members² to vote. At the onset,
it may have been perceived that by being a member of Muglo, one would
naturally be dedicated and involved. Notice the number involved in
discussion about the constitution. Many only lurk and are not active so may
not vote in the end.
The idea of a quorum also ensures ³those present², not necessarily the whole
group, can settle issues and, as such, are not hampered by the ³absence of
those absent². ³Majority of votes cast² over a given period may work well.

I still think we are on the right track in discussing this issue.


On 06/03/09 7:57 AM, "Susan N. Dunbar" <sndunbar@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> 4.0 Quorums of the Muglo membership shall consist of the Muglo
>>> >> membership in the current Muglo List, provided that at least two
>>> >> weeks' notice is given to the Muglo membership that a voting
>>> >> process will be performed on the Muglo List. Quorums of the Muglo
>>> >> Executive shall consist of the majority of the current Officers.
>>> >>

MUGLO information at <http://www.freewebs.com/muglo>
Manage your account options at <http://www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi>

Other related posts: