[H-GEN] Support to change Humbug's constitution.

[Benjamin Robert Carlyle]

[ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and  ]
[ Unix-related topics.  Please observe the list's charter.           ]
[ Worthwhile understanding: http://www.humbug.org.au/netiquette.html ]

Jason Henry Parker wrote:

> Rob Unsworth <rob at unsworth.net> writes:
> 
> > You don't vote to accept minutes, why are you bothering about a quorum ?.
> > Are you serious ?.
> 
> We're bothering about quorum because it's too large, which means the
> people who *do* want to see things happen in the club (notably having
> useful motions passed at AGMs), don't.

I may be mis-interpreting Rob, here, but I think the means
"bothering" in a differnt context to the one you've
construed.  Something in the back of my own head while
watching this debate keeps asking "Why do we have a quorum
anyway?".  I'm not sure I've seen a reasonable answer.  I
think that Rob is indicating that if you don't use voting to
decide day-to-day things at AGMs, then it doesn't seem
worthwhile requiring any kind of quorum at meetings at all.

Consider this:
If a set of notifcation procedures is followed, then the SGM
can go ahead regardless of who turns up.  If everyone is given
fair notice that one is on, then in the kind of club we're
currently involved in it doesn't seem necessary to place extra
political safeguards on decisions made at that meeting. 
Whatever needs voting on at the meeting could be voted on by
those present.  If noone at all turns up, then the committe
just makes up it's own mind.  This kind of American-election
voting might mean that people will turn up when there's
something they have some feeling about appears on the agenda,
and otherwise leave the club executive to make up it's own
mind :)

I think this is the basic intent of having a small
constant-sized quorum, but one wonders whether you need anyone
to turn up at all.  If the other safeguards are enough to keep
the small constant from wrecking the club, then they might
also be enough if that constant was 0.  It's apparent through
the discussions that have occured on this list that the
precise rules of voting and meetings are not clearly defined
anyway, which to some extent leaves the quorum concept
hanging.  I'd suggest that if you want to provide a
comprehensive set of guidelines for meetings then a quorum
could form a sensible part of procedures held within.  If
you're not going to go to that kind of bother, then perhaps
it's not worth bothering about the quorum either.


Benjamin

--
* This is list (humbug) general handled by majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au .
* Postings to this list are only accepted from subscribed addresses of
* lists 'general' or 'general-post'.