[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done.
From: |
markj |
Subject: |
Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done. |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:45:39 +0100 (BST) |
On 30 Aug, address@hidden wrote:
>> There will be an executive of 8 members. They will be selected by an
>> annual poll of all membership by single transferable vote according to
>> the rules of the Electoral Reform Society.
> STV is a good system, although I'm not thoroughly familiar with it (our
> Student's Union used Alternative Transferable Vote - I can't remember what
> the difference was, possibly something to do with quorum?)
The problem is that ATV is designed for electing one candidate from a
list, I think, while STV can elect n from it.
> Sounds like a TUC conference :S So long as we don't have to suffer
> composites ;)
I'm not familiar with the TUC, really. What is a composite?
> I would possibly think about a longer time-frame though - I
> think every quarter is more likely to work better, esp. if we set ourselves
> a decent quorum. The Chair would also have the power to call EGM as wall as
> GM, so it shouldn't prevent the association acting. But I think once a month
> is too possibly too much! I suppose it depends on the number and frequencies
> of resolutions though.
The "meetings" (I do not specify physical meetings) where resolutions
are made were for the executive, not the membership. I don't know if
you got that. I've deliberately given the executive too much power,
but I seem to have forgotten to require scrutiny by the membership,
although I specify consultation. Can someone suggest a suitable form of
words to achieve that?
> It probably depends on how resolutions are submitted. Generally, they should
> be proposed by a member and seconded by another. [...]
Agreed. It's a very simple twit filter and probably worth doing, but
this procedure should be specified in one of the first resolutions, I
think? It may be desirable to change such things later and I'd like to
have as little as possible in the charter that is not the basic
organisational structure. Is that a worthwhile aim? I don't know.
Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done., Marc Eberhard, 2001/08/22
Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done., MJ Ray, 2001/08/30
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done., home, 2001/08/30
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done.,
markj <=
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done., home, 2001/08/30
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done., MJ Ray, 2001/08/30
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done., Marc Eberhard, 2001/08/31
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done., MJ Ray, 2001/08/31
- Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done., Alistair Davidson, 2001/08/31
Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done., Alistair Davidson, 2001/08/31
Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done., Marc Eberhard, 2001/08/30