[muglo] Re: Constitution

  • From: "Susan N. Dunbar" <sndunbar@xxxxxxx>
  • To: muglo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 11:08:05 -0500

It is a sad group that can not count on a simple majority of their  
members to be interested in the business of the group.

I further think that if this is the state of affairs with MUGLO then  
some culling of the membership list may be needed.

I do not currently attend meetings, which by the by I consider to be  
SIGs but I do read all MUGLO posts and find much help from many of  
the posts.

I do not think that the idea that "those present", especially when  
this is an online group, and not the whole membership should settle  

I also think that if we set a quorum for settling business of the  
group then we should also set up a proxy system.

Or alternately: ...

Allow that non votes by members be considered as abstaining votes  
which do not count, when counting the vote as either negatively or  
positively affecting the outcome of the vote.  If this option is  
followed then by the nature of the beast a quorum is the whole group.

I also suggest that once a year before elections or alternately  
before any vote is called of the membership that the list be culled  
and those who do not respond to a call to verify their interest be  
removed from the group membership.  I do not have the knowledge to do  
this but it is often done in online groups ... Kijiji immediately  
comes to mind when they ask regularly for the recipient to confirm  
that the recipient still wishes to receive certain notifications or  
that name will be removed from the list of those receiving  


On 6 Mar, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Theresa Roth wrote:

> While I second the idea that voting should be online, it could be
> problematic trying to get the “majority of members” 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 “those present”, not necessarily  
> the whole
> group, can settle issues and, as such, are not hampered by the  
> “absence of
> those absent”. “Majority of votes cast” over a given period may  
> work well.
> I still think we are on the right track in discussing this issue.
> Theresa
MUGLO information at <http://www.freewebs.com/muglo>
Manage your account options at <http://www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi>

Other related posts: