[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