[wplug-plan] Quorum Conundrum

[David Ostroske]

On 7/26/06, Michael Semcheski <lists at immuneit.com> wrote:
[...]
> So here's one idea.  Discuss things online as much as possible.  Discuss
> them to death.  Then, hold the membership business meeting within a
> certain time.  10:30 to 11:30.  1:00 to 2:00.  10:30 to 2:00 seems like
> way to long to need to vote on whether to raise the dues $10.  If you
> have an issue that will be discussed at the special membership meeting
> ... it gets voted on online before it is added to the agenda.
> Otherwise, if you show up at the meeting and as the discussion starts
> you say out of the blue "$10 is an unacceptable fee because Thomas
> Jefferson was a mason!" you will be shut down by the chairperson or the
> Secretary and the secrets of the founding fathers will remain hidden.

Online discussion is the absolute BEST way to hash out an issue before
any sort of meeting takes place. When we were writing the bylaws, we
found that we'd get through our meeting agenda so much faster and with
higher-quality results than if we just showed up and started at square
zero. Plus, if somebody couldn't make it to the meeting, they'd still
have their word in via email, and the people present at the meeting
would remember what they said.

Also, we never needed to "vote" before the meeting (an unacceptable
practice by any set of rules). We'd often know if there was at least
enough consensus to get an issue resolved beforehand. We'd even know
what outstanding controversies still existed.

However, it was still vital that we hold the live meetings. Seeing
each other face to face gave us another chance to hash out details.
We'd set ourselves an agenda, and even if we got into masonic
conspiracy theories(?) we'd try to keep our conversation germane, not
let issues bleed into each other, and work on specific motions and
resolutions to get our work done. We even took a little time to
socialize.

> I'm all for wplug.  But the meetings need some work.  And if there is
> going to be a discussion at the meeting, it should be moderated.  80
> members right -- what if they all showed up?

If they all showed up? Alright! :)

I understand what you mean by "moderated." We're better at keeping
conversation flowing than we have been, but we still have moments when
we cut into each other's floor time.

Maybe it's time we dug out the "penguin" and passed it around. It's a
technique we've used really successfully at meetings in the past.

> It seems like a no brainer.  Go in, vote, pay up dues for the year or
> don't.  By my calculation, it should take exactly one hour.  If more
> time than that is required, I would like to see a compelling reason be
> broached first online.

We'll be putting out a meeting agenda within the next few days. It
should take less than an hour to take care of business. We can handle
the actual paying of dues later. Not everyone's membership runs out at
the same time, remember.


As a reminder, here's what we're debating. This is paraphrased from
the Board's draft minutes from July 12th:

In order to handle both quorum issues and the over-extended membership
roster, the Board recommended this action, to be approved by the
membership:
*Annual dues would be set at $10.00 per member. (This applies to new
memberships and renewals, not to current memberships.)

That's what's up for debate. The following things wouldn't be voted
upon unless somebody made a motion to do so. They do form part of the
context of the recommendation.
*We would not longer give free pizza to members, as we had done in the past.
*But we would offer perks to members who showed up early to the meetings

That's what we should be discussing.

-- 
David Ostroske <eksortso at gmail.com>