Heh heh...you know, I'm used to the idea that you can't please all of the people all of the time, but I've seen basically 3 complaints about this proposed revision. Of those 3, one seems to be that it's not specific enough and so the SC might be able to block a vote, and a second complaint is that the SC *can't* block a vote! >-----Original Message----- > >What this does is give me an idea. All I have to do is find >another CC in >MO who wants to tie up the system. We can propose one bylaws amendment >after the other and keep MO holding votes on whether or not to >pass them on >to the AB. And, if the SC will cooperate, he can request the >EC to conduct >each such election to insure fairness. > >Now, if we can get two people, in each XXGenWeb Project to >partner up, we >can pretty well eliminate any other business any XXGenWeb >Project might wish >to conduct and drive the EC nutz! > >And, we cannot be declared not in good standing because we >will be following >the bylaws (if this is passed)., and there is no provision for >a judgement >of "frivolous" to be declared, except by the CCs of XXGenWeb >Project. Who >knows, maybe after wearing down the CCs to the point where >they ignore any >further proposals, the two of us would be the only ones voting in the >XXGenWeb on the issue. Of course, we would be voted down on >the national >level, but wouldn't it be a lot of fun to present the general >membership >with an amendment requiring the NC to wear purple shorts with pink >polka-dots during his/her term in office.? > >It looks to me like this is just one more reason (of many so >far) to vote >against the revised set of bylaws, when they are presented to the >membership. > >Phyllis Rippee >SW/SC CC Representative > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003