Ralph Meijer ralphm at ik.nu
Thu Nov 7 16:38:41 UTC 2019

On 07/11/2019 16.54, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 7 Nov 2019, at 09:22, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net 
> [..]
> I think we need to either not be introducing voting items that people 
> effectively can’t vote in, or we need to change the expectation that 
> memberbot voting and not attending the meetings in person is the norm - 
> because regardless of whether one can squint at the bylaws in a 
> particular way that means they can justify it procedurally, having 
> member votes that most members are practically excluded from isn’t healthy.

I want to point out that the 5% is for the annual meeting. I.e. the one 
we usually use to vote on new Board and Council members. Also, I 
strongly believe that the way we have set up proxy voting, that only 
authorizes the Secretary to represent the votes given through memberbot.

Also, I think that 3.8 para 2 does *not* say that plurality is not 
affected by the withdrawal of Members during such meeting. I believe it 
actually means plurality is determined against the number of present and 
represented Members upon the establishment of quorum in the meeting. If 
large numbers of Members are represented by proxy voting, that means 
getting a majority for such new motions is hard to achieve.

In this case, the best course of action is to request adjournment of the 
meeting, as described in the last paragraph of section 3.8. You'd simply 
hold a subsequent meeting to vote on the motion. This could then again 
be done either by proxy voting, or requiring people to show up.


More information about the Members mailing list