RE: [atlarge-discuss] Quorum requirements poll

["Abel Wisman" <abel@able-towers.com>]

I'll remain on the same stance I took before the election, minimum
quorum should be at the very least 6 but I can live with Joop's original
proposal of 7, to which Sotiris subscribed too according to the answers
given to the question of that nature by Joop.

http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0305/msg00388.html

I vote for 7

Abel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com] 
> Sent: 01 June 2003 08:07
> To: At Large Discuss
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Quorum requirements poll
> 
> 
> Fellow Panelists et al.,
> 
> Congratulations.
> 
> Let's jump right into things and decide the quorum requirement.
> 
> I propose a quorum of 4 of the 11 panel members.  Since it 
> appears as if the number of the panel is somehow arbitrarily 
> set at 11, I think we should avoid the mistakes of the past 
> and make the quorum requirement easy to fulfil to effectively 
> transact the business of the organization.
> 
> 
> Please indicate (with an X) the number of panelists which 
> ought to be required for quorum:
> 
> 1. []
> 2. []
> 3. []
> 4. []
> 5. []
> 6. []
> 7. []
> 8. []
> 9. []
> 10.[]
> 11.[]
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --Sotiris Sotiopoulos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> 



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