[518] in UA Senate

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: Senate Bylaws Maintenance Bill

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Stumbaugh)
Sun Apr 4 21:12:10 2010

Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 21:12:07 -0400
From: Tim Stumbaugh <stum@MIT.EDU>
To: Daniel Hawkins <hwkns@mit.edu>
CC: UA Senate <ua-senate@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <k2x9d4f87ed1004041809v384a8b08j68f3892fd106a5ab@mail.gmail.com>

I was just going to leave it as "must appear on the agenda at two consecutive meetings." That seem 
reasonable?

On 4 Apr 2010 21.09, Daniel Hawkins wrote:
> Oh, I see - yeah, you have to specifically move to take something off
> the table.  RONR does allow for postponing until a certain date or
> meeting.  We could specify that instead of tabling...
>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Tim Stumbaugh <stum@mit.edu
> <mailto:stum@mit.edu>> wrote:
>
>     OK. That's fine. I'll update it.
>     The point I am trying to make is that in RONR, things on the table
>     at the end of a meeting just fall to the floor. I'm just trying to
>     make it so what we intend is actually what's in the bylaws.
>
>
>     On 4 Apr 2010 19.14, Daniel Hawkins wrote:
>
>         If people really don't like it the first time, they can move to
>         postpone
>         indefinitely.  That's not exactly the same, but I think it
>         serves the
>         same purpose.
>
>         -hwkns
>
>         On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Tim Stumbaugh <stum@mit.edu
>         <mailto:stum@mit.edu>
>         <mailto:stum@mit.edu <mailto:stum@mit.edu>>> wrote:
>
>             I was thinking that if people really don't like it the first
>         time, we
>             save a week. I'm fine with just having the dereference to
>         the table
>             and just say it must appear on the agenda at two separate
>         meetings.
>
>             On 4/4/10, Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu
>         <mailto:adehnert@mit.edu> <mailto:adehnert@mit.edu
>         <mailto:adehnert@mit.edu>>>
>
>             wrote:
>          > Can you say anything about why you want a two-thirds majority
>         at each
>          > meeting? That seems like it will add unnecessary overhead to the
>          > process. I think that the idea behind requiring it sit on the
>             table for
>          > a week is to avoid surprising people who might care, and I don't
>             think
>          > requiring an affirmative vote at each meeting helps that any.
>          >
>          > Thanks,
>          > Alex
>          >
>
>
>             --
>             -Tim
>         "There is no emotion, there is peace."
>
>
>
>     --
>     -Tim
>     "Live right now/Just be yourself/It doesn't matter if it's good
>     enough for someone else."
>
>

-- 
-Tim
"There is no ignorance, there is knowledge."

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post