Proposed Bylaws - Revisited

[ChrisBuono]

Well, we had a tie on the need for bylaws (as they were proposed). I made a few edits.

"All members are equal in their rights and responsibilities... - Any member can initiate a vote on any topic relevant to the club. All voting will be executed in a public forum (whether electronic, by mail, or in-person). For any given topic, all voting will be open for at least one week, but no longer than one month (designated at the initiation of the vote). Votes are encouraged to be limited to two options (Yes or No, Agree or Disagree, etc.). Healthy, constructive discussion is also encouraged. The outcome of all votes will be determined by a majority of all participating members. A quorum will be at least five participating members."

The question still stands, are bylaws necessary? If so, are the proposed bylaws good?

[Rainer Feyer]

Chris,

I know this is not going to be met with happy ears/ eyes, but, give it a try:

Could we wait with the whole bylaws thing until we have a better sense of where we are going? As you know, the bylaws, etc, was not a good starting point with the old RC-CDMAS. I actually voted for your bylaw. It was simple, and made sense. But, as you can see, it is already not that simple - you have, so far, made two revisions.


My hope would be that we could exist with the statement made by Nammy: Ignore the insanity (I don't remember the exact wording) and keep it at that.

However, voting is ALWAYS an option, no bylaw needed for that. Sending a PM to someone who offended us, with nice language, is always an option without bylaws. Ignoring someone is most definately an option and suggestion, no bylaw needed for that.

But, the vote will tell :)

[ChrisBuono]

No Problem - No pride in authorship here.