Russell Coker wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2013, Dave Hall <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Would someone who was there like to give the list a summary of what
>> happened at tonight's AGM? I couldn't attend but I'm interested in the
>> outcome.
> The case for not merging with LA was based on the idea that a future LA
> committee might go crazy or merely have interests that don't coincide with
> those of LUV. That was apparently a convincing argument to some people as the
> motion was not carried.
>
> One of the problems with that idea is that AGM attendence is as low as 16
> which isn't a statistically significant sampling of LUV members.
As some one who voted in favour of the motion, or would have if the
proxy voting system was clear;
can I please ask the committee to sort the rules situation consistent
with proxy voting.
It is apparent that attendance at monthly meetings(and thus AGM's) can
never be more than a small percentage of say
luv-man, luv-talk; luv-announce for reasons of remoteness or in my case
existing commitments.
'A' set of steps would seem to be :
1/ Preliminary definition of the set of people who can be considered
legitimate members of LUV,
under the existing rules.
2/ Drawing up a new set of rules consistent with the new Victorian
legislation;
which set of rules would include
- a new definition enlarging the set of people who are to be
considered members of LUV;
to include anyone who has ever been on a LUV list and hasn't
unsubscribed ! (my suggestion)
- a new system which maintains a current list of members of LUV
- a new proxy system which is as simple and broad as possible; and
has been fully debugged.
3/ Ratification of the new set of rules by 1/ above and publication to
every one included in 2/ above.
4/ Such publication to make it clear that anyone who doesn't opt-out
is now a member of LUV
just a suggestion ,
regards Rohan McLeod
_______________________________________________
luv-main mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
