[Lnc-business] status of call for electronic meeting

Joshua Katz planning4liberty at gmail.com
Sat Jan 20 22:02:10 EST 2018


I agree.  At the same time, it's logistically simpler to ask "who agrees?"
and then try to work out a date with those who joined the call.



Joshua A. Katz


On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>
wrote:

>    Joshua, you raise a fair point that 4 email ballot sponsors aren't
>    sufficient to stop a called meeting, however the other thought I should
>    have written was that at least one of the email ballot sponsors made
>    comments that to me said he wanted the email ballot instead of the
>    meeting.  Now that there is a date/time, that could change a person's
>    willingness to co-sponsor as well if that date/time is objectionable
>    for some reason.  We really need to get the details of the motion
>    first, then the co-sponsors, instead of co-sponsors for a concept
>    before the details are defined because the details could ruin it for a
>    co-sponsor.
>    -Alicia
>
>    On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Joshua Katz
>    <[1]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>         I will join the other one too.  I believe we have until midnight
>         Pacific to get joiners. It's not clear to me that the mere
>      presence of
>         an email ballot means that past statements of joining in a call
>      are not
>         meaningful - if that's the case, every call for an electronic
>      meeting
>         can be killed by 4 people putting an email ballot together on the
>         limine of the required notice time.  However, in this instance,
>      where
>         there was no past agreement on time and date, I would agree that
>         support cannot be inferred.
>         Joshua A. Katz
>
>       On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Alicia Mattson
>       <[1][2]alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:
>            From the policy manual, "Each committee member calling for an
>            electronic meeting must do so by emailing the entire committee
>         and
>            specifying the date of the meeting, time of the meeting, and
>    the
>            topic(s) to be addressed.  Meetings must be so called no fewer
>         than 2
>            days in advance for committees with fewer than 10 members, or 7
>         days in
>            advance for committees with 10 or more members."
>            The call needs to include 1) date, 2) time, and 3) topic(s) to
>    be
>            addressed.
>            Previously there were six people requesting an electronic
>    meeting
>         for a
>            topic (suspension of VC Vohra- previously moved by both
>    McKnight
>         and
>            Van Horn), but there was no date/time specified.  Those people
>         were:
>            Harlos, Katz, Redpath, Goldstein, McKnight, Van Horn.
>            Now there is a date/time specified (on a thread which implies
>    the
>         topic
>            is suspension of the Vice Chair), but since there is a
>            sufficiently-sponsored email ballot on a related topic I cannot
>         just
>            assume that the same people are willing to still sponsor the
>    call
>         of
>            the meeting under different circumstances.  I have a lot of
>    email
>            clutter today, but so far I believe I have seen the following
>         people
>            join meeting calls:
>            01/28/17 at 10:00 p.m. Eastern (Harlos, Katz)
>            10/28/17 at 9:00 p.m. Eastern (Harlos, Hagan)
>            As a parliamentary matter, scope of notice rules would allow a
>         meeting
>            called to consider suspension to also consider a lesser action
>         such as
>            censure.  The scope of notice covers anything in the range
>         between the
>            status quo and the proposed action which was noticed.
>            -Alicia
>
>           _______________________________________________
>           Lnc-business mailing list
>           [2][3]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>           [3][4]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>      References
>         1. mailto:[5]alicia.mattson at lp.org
>         2. mailto:[6]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>         3. [7]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>      _______________________________________________
>      Lnc-business mailing list
>      [8]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>      [9]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> References
>
>    1. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
>    2. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
>    3. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>    4. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>    5. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
>    6. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>    7. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>    8. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>    9. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
   I agree.  At the same time, it's logistically simpler to ask "who
   agrees?" and then try to work out a date with those who joined the
   call.

   Joshua A. Katz
   On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Alicia Mattson
   <[1]alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:

        Joshua, you raise a fair point that 4 email ballot sponsors
     aren't
        sufficient to stop a called meeting, however the other thought I
     should
        have written was that at least one of the email ballot sponsors
     made
        comments that to me said he wanted the email ballot instead of
     the
        meeting.  Now that there is a date/time, that could change a
     person's
        willingness to co-sponsor as well if that date/time is
     objectionable
        for some reason.  We really need to get the details of the motion
        first, then the co-sponsors, instead of co-sponsors for a concept
        before the details are defined because the details could ruin it
     for a
        co-sponsor.
        -Alicia
        On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Joshua Katz
        <[1][2]planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
             I will join the other one too.  I believe we have until
     midnight
             Pacific to get joiners. It's not clear to me that the mere
          presence of
             an email ballot means that past statements of joining in a
     call
          are not
             meaningful - if that's the case, every call for an
     electronic
          meeting
             can be killed by 4 people putting an email ballot together
     on the
             limine of the required notice time.  However, in this
     instance,
          where
             there was no past agreement on time and date, I would agree
     that
             support cannot be inferred.
             Joshua A. Katz
           On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Alicia Mattson

         <[1][2][3]alicia.mattson at lp.org> wrote:
              From the policy manual, "Each committee member calling for
   an
              electronic meeting must do so by emailing the entire
   committee
           and
              specifying the date of the meeting, time of the meeting, and
      the
              topic(s) to be addressed.  Meetings must be so called no
   fewer
           than 2
              days in advance for committees with fewer than 10 members,
   or 7
           days in
              advance for committees with 10 or more members."
              The call needs to include 1) date, 2) time, and 3) topic(s)
   to
      be
              addressed.
              Previously there were six people requesting an electronic
      meeting
           for a
              topic (suspension of VC Vohra- previously moved by both
      McKnight
           and
              Van Horn), but there was no date/time specified.  Those
   people
           were:
              Harlos, Katz, Redpath, Goldstein, McKnight, Van Horn.
              Now there is a date/time specified (on a thread which
   implies
      the
           topic
              is suspension of the Vice Chair), but since there is a
              sufficiently-sponsored email ballot on a related topic I
   cannot
           just
              assume that the same people are willing to still sponsor the
      call
           of
              the meeting under different circumstances.  I have a lot of
      email
              clutter today, but so far I believe I have seen the
   following
           people
              join meeting calls:
              01/28/17 at 10:00 p.m. Eastern (Harlos, Katz)
              10/28/17 at 9:00 p.m. Eastern (Harlos, Hagan)
              As a parliamentary matter, scope of notice rules would allow
   a
           meeting
              called to consider suspension to also consider a lesser
   action
           such as
              censure.  The scope of notice covers anything in the range
           between the
              status quo and the proposed action which was noticed.
              -Alicia
             _______________________________________________
             Lnc-business mailing list

               [2][3][4]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
               [3][4][5]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-
     business
          References
             1. mailto:[5][6]alicia.mattson at lp.org
             2. mailto:[6][7]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
             3. [7][8]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/
     mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
          _______________________________________________
          Lnc-business mailing list
          [8][9]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
          [9][10]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
     References
        1. mailto:[11]planning4liberty at gmail.com
        2. mailto:[12]alicia.mattson at lp.org
        3. mailto:[13]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
        4. [14]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
        5. mailto:[15]alicia.mattson at lp.org
        6. mailto:[16]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
        7. [17]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

      8. mailto:[18]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
      9. [19]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

     _______________________________________________
     Lnc-business mailing list
     [20]Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
     [21]http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

References

   1. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
   2. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
   3. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
   4. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   5. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
   6. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
   7. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   8. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
   9. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  10. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  11. mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com
  12. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
  13. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  14. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  15. mailto:alicia.mattson at lp.org
  16. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  17. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  18. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  19. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
  20. mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
  21. http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list