[atlarge-discuss] General Meetings Re: [atlarge-discuss] (fwd) Re: Let movesmartly together

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 07:08 -0800 2003/01/14, Jan Siren wrote:
>I don't understand an "online Special General Meeting."  Do you mean
>something like a chat room?  (Can't stand 'em, myself.)  I prefer
>Robert's
>Rules of Order.

I'm with you on this, Jan.

Our problem is that our 1000+ members are spread all over the
map and must all have the right to attend the Annual (and any
Special) General Meetings without incurring the heavy expenses
involved in jet-setting around to meet face-to-face. That means
we must find some mechanism by which we can "meet" online
without excluding the people whose equipment and connections
and budgets don't run to videoconferencing.

Some organizations do indeed set up a scheduled chat-room
session when they need to meet formally. Aside from my
personal dislike for "chat" applications, the providers of
free ones don't necessarily make theirs accessible to people
with limited system resources or connection time. There is
also the issue of time-zones to consider: which regions get
to participate at a convenient hour and which must log on in
the middle of the night or get time off work to participate?

Videoconferences and telephone conferencing are plagued by
the same problems as well as being horrendously expensive
and posing problems for people in places where the infrastructure
just isn't accessible.

Other organizations have been known to use a Web forum structure
within a fixed time-period (days or weeks rather than a few hours
for "chat") set up so as to allow input on each agenda item in
some organized manner. Then the various postings are compiled
into a set of resolutions and amendments on which those
involved can vote in the appropriate order, and finally the
results are tabulated and published to the membership as a
proper set of minutes of the meeting. The problems here are
the length of time it takes and the labour of making the
discussion conform to a set of rules of order. Then, there is
the difficulty for members who don't have reliable access to
the Web for the longer periods needed to follow all the
discussion ... which may be solvable on a case-by-case basis
by arranging for people to use another member's computer or a
cybercafé during the "meeting" portion.

Yet others use a special moderated mailing-list and a specific
agenda indicating the time-period for dealing with each item.
That is, the Chair/moderator opens the meeting and ensures
that everyone sticks to the first agenda item until a consensus
is reached or a vote needed. (Subscriptions are on a members-only
basis; votes can be open on the list itself or directed to an
address for collection and tabulation.) The list can move on
to discussing another agenda item while the votes are being
tabulated.

Alternatively, the list can be used to collect the
resolutions and proposed amendments to be included in an
e-mail or mail-in ballot, whereby people can cast their votes
on everything at one go. The only problem with this is that
there can be situations where the balloting leads to
ambiguous results. As per Robert's and the other guides,
for example, one votes on the amendment(s) and then on the
principle motion as amended. With a single ballot for
everything, it can be ambiguous: if the resolution passes and
one or more amendments pass, too, it takes good planning of
the ballot to ensure that it is clear whether people were
voting for the original or the amended version of the
resolution. In a "live" meeting, those present are more
likely to notice if Resolution 3-as-amended contradicts
Resolution 1 (amended or not) which passed; in a mailing-list
meeting, the onus falls on the Chair/moderator to keep an
eye out for possible inconsistencies and encourage that
they be worked out in discussion before the ballot goes out.

Of course some organizations simply announce that a meeting
will be held in Timbuktu and then limit the discussion and
voting to the people who can get there. As a modus operandi
for an organization of Internet users, the strikes me as
absurd ... but in some jurisdictions there is a legal
requirement that official meetings take place in a manner
which permits all participants to see and hear one another
in real time, which means an organization without the
budget for a videoconferenced meeting are effectively stuck
with disenfranchising anyone who can't travel to the
specified place. (Personally, I'd advise against our
incorporating in any jurisdiction with such a requirement,
for obvious reasons, even if that jurisdiction offered
advantages like a low filing fee or tax exemption.)

Sorry to be so longwinded (again) but this is exactly the
sort of thing I had hoped the Panel would have explored
and reported on so that our bylaws could be written
according to the legal constraints of a given jurisdiction
and form of incorporation, and our members could know what
procedures would be most suitable and why they were being
recommended.

Oh, well, time for a couple of hours of sleep...

Judyth



##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de