Ok, take two...
Since we didn't have a quorum last week, we re-scheduled the annual
meeting for this week. I believe we need 13 members to be there. All
the issues we plan to vote on are listed here:
Please come if you are able. I will only be able to be there for a
short time, so I plan to run through the agenda fairly quickly and
then head out. If you plan to be there and vote but won't be there by
7:30 let me know so I will know to wait.
Bad news everyone...
I can't make it tonight for the meeting.
Additionally, I just realized I will be in Vegas next weekend during
the Hive anniversary party, and thus have to cancel the Dual Core
booking. Sorry about that
You can vote via proxy. Announce you will be your proxy to the Mailing list. Like Dave Menninger. Then send Dave an email letting him know how you vote.
As far as the party goes… well, you suck
Any chance Bootsy is available??? Int0x80…I think you should be in charge of hooking us up with an alternative…hehe
Agree re alternatives! BTW - I will be voting via proxy email to DM.
The alternative is xio2, lol
Via public proxy I vote to pass all bylaw amendments. I will send
Dave my 3 votes for the board (just in case the 5-people amendment
So, how did last night's meeting go? I got stuck at work =/
everyone who ran for a position got elected to that position:
the board of directors is now:
dave menninger was elected president
chris anderson was elected secretary
chris davis was elected chief operations officer
chris anderson was elected chief technology officer
all amendments to the bylaws passed except for the remote meeting
attendance amendment. many in attendance were unclear on the language
of the amendment.
a new motion was carried to call a special meeting to tweak the
language of for the remote attendance amendment so that it can be
voted on again.
To give a bit more information on why the remote attendance amendment did not get passed in its current wording, here are some bullet points of different opinions offered from different people who were present:
The wording made it seem like a purely virtual meeting could be called at 3:00 AM on a Saturday to vote on material.
Some offered the opinion that they felt the physical presence at meetings was important to facilitate discussion and debate over items being voted on and that if we are going to allow people to be “virtually” present, there should maybe be a requirement that a certain % of the attendees be physically present for it to be considered an official meeting.
Others felt that if it was purely a voting issue, they would like a more structured wording. For example, As a final point in the meetings we can bring up the items that will be voted on next meeting and discuss them. At this point we put up the online poll. People have the ability to vote in the poll online up until the start of the next meeting, at least 7 days later. At this point the online poll closes and people present at the following meeting (who have not already voted in the online poll) can cast their votes. If the total number of votes is greater than or equal to a quorum, then the vote result will be considered valid.
Meeting 1 - People bring up what they want to vote on and we discuss it at Meeting 1. At the end of the meeting we put up a poll online.
I****nterim between Meeting 1 & 2 - People can discuss the proposition online and vote in the online poll. This period will not be less than 7 days.
Meeting 2 - Online poll is locked so no further votes are possible. Those present at the meeting can continue the discussion, people who have not already voted in the online poll may cast their votes now.
If # Online votes + # Offline votes >= Quorum, Votes will be considered valid and the result will be implemented.
NOTE: While I have written the above, and in some cases added my own commentary, I am merely writing what I recall from our discussion at the meeting on Tuesday, if I have forgotten someone’s thoughts please reply and we can add them to the discussion.