Message-Id: <200203100904.g2A94ko02071@kaisei.mit.edu>
To: lmf@mit.edu
Reply-To: smore@kaisei.mit.edu
Subject: Lisez, SVP.
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 04:04:46 -0500
From: "Morgan A. Sonderegger" <smore@PO12.MIT.EDU>

Dear Members of LMF,

I'd like to say something about this issue, then move discussion to
lmf-flame if there's any further comment.

First, I screwed up.  The guidelines state that it's up to the
President to decide whether an issue is "major", and therefore
requires a week's advance notice and a 2/3 vote.  I should have seen
that this is clearly a "major" issue, given the feelings, discussion,
and procedural matters that became associated with it the last time
around.  I should have announced it one week in advance, especially to
give the discussion that would obviously follow time to happen.

Second of all, I'd like to clarify voting procedures, and hopefully
soothe talk of boycotts, voting limits, etc.  At any meeting, anyone
can move anything.  When I say "y a-t-il quelque chose d'autre a
discuter?" at the end of a meeting, you're free to move to burn the
LMF guidelines or convert the kitchen into a jacuzzi.  Thus, there is
no question about whether or not it's "okay" to revote on something.
That seems a little ludicrous, but there's a good catch in Robert's
Rules of Order, which we loosely use - a vote can happen only after
someone makes a motion.  First, that motion must be seconded.  If the
motion is seconded, discussion on the issue commences.  This
discussion ends when a motion is made and approved by majority vote to
either table (kill) the motion, or vote on the motion.  I think this
deals with most of the problems with the legitimacy of this vote I've
been hearing about.  If most people think a motion is stupid, the
motion can be tabled in 10 seconds and will never be heard from again.
If most people do not, it will be voted on.  Likewise with cable - if
people don't think it should be voted on again, either at this
juncture or for a long time, it will be proposed and killed within a
minute.

So then why am I apologizing about not sending out email earlier?  In
the LMF guidelines, it states that whether or not a vote is "major" is
left up to the President.  If I decide the issue being voted on is
"major", I must announce the *possibility* of the vote happening
(i.e. a motion being made) a week in advance, ostensibly so that
fruitful discussion on the motion can happen.  If I don't state it a
week in advance, or if it's proposed by someone less than a week in
advance (i.e. at the meeting), *we can, and must, still consider the
motion*.  If such a motion is made, I must make a decision on whether
it is "major" or not.  If so, 2/3 of those present must vote to even
allow a 2/3 majority vote to go forward, presumably to make up for the
fact that no discussion of the "major" issue could happen before the
meeting.

I hope this clears things up, and that I haven't misinterpreted
anything.  If you have any more questions, I've found page 13 and on
of the guidelines helpful.  

The way our meetings and rules are structured are, I think, to in fact
allow maximum democratic process and input, even if it's sometimes a
bit uncomfortable.  The best way to express your opinion is to show up
at the meeting and give your two cents, through your mouth and your
vote.

The flaw in the system is mine, for not clarifying things and for
making a small mess of this vote.  I'm sorry, and am looking forward
to a good meeting tomorrow.  Venez tous!


Morgan