[Council Meeting] Meeting notes from 2019-08-22

Tanstaafl tanstaafl at libertytrek.org
Thu Sep 19 18:13:00 UTC 2019

But again, in the modern age, this just doesn't make sense.

Votes could be held via secure email.

I personally think that governments should operate in a similar manner.
Forget single, timed voice or recorded votes. Simply submit a proposal
to be voted on, and when the last member votes, the votes are counted
and the decision rendered.

Anyway, this is a pet peeve of mine with respect to large governments,
and it just doesn't make sense to me to not only *allow* everyone to
vote, but it should be *required*.

On 9/19/2019, 1:55:42 PM, Wayne Mery <vseerror at lehigh.edu> wrote:
> I've been on many boards and I can tell you that most operate on this
> standard.
> There is of course downside to having just 4 members constitute a
> quorum. But
> a) there's nothing  to prevent members exercising common courtesy in
> delaying votes on exceptionally big issues to a day where most/more
> members are available to vote - if time allows
> b) on big issues, we have often already discussed the ramifications and
> each member made their POV known, which allows for influencing the votes
> of other members
> c) we are an international group across several time zones -with that
> complication and our personal lives, if the number was increased to say
> 5 or 6 members, then we'd not be able to vote and act at many of our
> meetings.   That said, you can see by our minutes that we often have 5-6
> members per meeting
> As for this August meeting where only four were present we expect that
> during summer (and various holiday period), and points a and b above are
> relevant.
> On 9/19/2019 10:57 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> No one else sees this as a concern?
>> On Fri Aug 30 2019 09:53:17 GMT-0400 (Eastern Standard Time), Tanstaafl
>> <tanstaafl at libertytrek.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu Aug 29 2019 10:04:14 GMT-0400 (Eastern Standard Time), ba
>>> <ba at pep-project.org> wrote:
>>>> The Council at the time of the call consists of 7 seat holders without
>>>> deputies. In order to be quorate for voting, the call needs to have 1/2
>>>> of the Council members, which gives 4. The meeting is quorate. From now
>>>> on, motions can be passed with the agreement of a simple majority of
>>>> those present. The majority threshold is currently 4.
>>> I'm a little concerned about this.
>>> Shouldn't there be some kind of limit to what the 'majority threshold'
>>> can do?
>>> Meaning, shouldn't larger questions require a full vote of all 7 members?
>>> It is after all the age of the internet, it isn't like it is some kind
>>> of huge hardship for someone to be notified when an important vote is
>>> pending, and allow them to vote remotely.

More information about the tb-planning mailing list