Changes

=VOTE PROPOSAL ROUGH DRAFT=

=VOTE PROPOSAL ROUGH DRAFT=

I propose a vote to clarify the convoluted, confusing and seldom regarded bits in the current bylaws that cover quorum for votes.

I propose a vote to clarify the convoluted, confusing and seldom regarded bits in the current bylaws that cover quorum for votes. It would simply require 1/3 of Full members to participate in a vote, for it to meet quorum. It aligns with actual behavior of the membership and votes from the past several years.

 

== Background ==

== Background ==

There is a very convoluted bit in the bylaws intended to allow a vote to happen even if Full members stay away from voting ... essentially it removes a member from a count towards quorum if they are inactive and don't participate for a period of time. However, record-keeping, conduct of meetings and understanding of the process is so poor, that it has never been properly conducted. Any vote that would be attempted under the true bylaws-specified process could easily be challenged based on poor audits of membership and record-keeping. The de facto standard then, has been to interpret quorum in the most conservative way at 1/3 of full members. This is even difficult, since in every audit of full members, some are found to not be in good standing, or still be on the rolls despite being suspended or otherwise not a full member, and it isn't unthinkable that a full member who is paying, is somehow listed as not being so, or otherwise did not get a vote announcement or proxy email.  

There is a very convoluted bit in the bylaws intended to allow a vote to happen even if Full members stay away from voting ... essentially it removes a member from a count towards quorum if they are inactive and don't participate for a period of time. However, record-keeping, conduct of meetings and understanding of the process is so poor, that it has never been properly conducted. Any vote that would be attempted under the true bylaws-specified process could easily be challenged based on poor audits of membership and record-keeping. The de facto standard then, has been to interpret quorum in the most conservative way at 1/3 of full members. This is even difficult, since in every audit of full members, some are found to not be in good standing, or still be on the rolls despite being suspended or otherwise not a full member, and it isn't unthinkable that a full member who is paying, is somehow listed as not being so, or otherwise did not get a vote announcement or proxy email.