<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Paul Lehto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div class="im">On 9/29/10, Mawaki Chango <<a href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com">kichango@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> I really don't think the rule of voting at one election prior to be formally<br>> considered member is such a hurdle that some people make it sound. After<br>
> all, how often does that membership status have any consequence? People on<br>> the list can always vote at any time. Only certain decisions, of particular<br>> importance for the group, require as condition for participation that one's<br>
> involvement be old of 1 vote casted, or that one did not miss the previous<br>> vote. Is that really too much?<br><br></div>The idea being debated is not an interpretation that voting in ANY<br>single prior election qualifies for Charter voting, but the<br>
IMMEDIATELY prior election.<br></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I got that, and that's what I meant. Granted, my wording missed the time *continuity* aspect of the "1 vote old" condition at the time of the charter amendment vote (although the alternate proposition "one did not miss the previous vote" that followed is rather clear in that regard.) </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><br>Recall that there have been elections in which, before the election is<br>over, people have to be urged to vote in order to have a quorum.<br>
Regardless of the type of election, it shows that with everyone's busy<br>schedules, turnout can be a problem. Thus, after every election there<br>is a rotating but relatively large number of people disqualified for<br>
the next election if it is a Charter vote, and those people are not by<br>any means just newcomers to the list. It could be anybody. It has<br>included me.<br></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Probably as several other people here, I once took a long leave of absence from this list and IGC altogether due, namely, to a busy schedule as you noted may happen. I'm sure I missed votes during that time, one of which might have been for a charter amendment (or the first vote after I resumed participation might have been). And I accept the consequences, whatever they may be, based on the group's constitutional rule. So I perfectly understand it's not just a problem of newcomers (hence the "elders" vs "young ones" dichotomy made earlier is not the point; anybody may slip out of membership at any time.) You may also want to note that our elections generally run several days, maybe 2 weeks or so.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In conclusion, for my part, I'm not partaking in a debate as to whether that rule is a perfect or the best one. If people want to see it changed, I'm sure the charter provides for ways to initiate such action. I hope it's understood that it is not my intent to speak against a motion for amendment. I believe the problem initially was whether with respect to our latest decisionmaking procedures we were following our charter provisions as they stand now (and I was commenting on a particular interpretation of the rule which did not reflect, in my view, the positive spirit in which it was set up. Nevertheless, even with the right interpretation, the rule can still be challenged and changed.)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Mawaki</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote"><font color="#888888"><br>--<br></font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class="h5">Paul R Lehto, J.D.<br>P.O. Box 1<br>Ishpeming, MI 49849<br><a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a><br>906-204-2334<br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>