[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done.

From: markj
Subject: Re: [Fsfe-uk] What needs to be done.
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 12:45:39 +0100 (BST)

On 30 Aug, address@hidden wrote:
>> There will be an executive of 8 members.  They will be selected by an
>> annual poll of all membership by single transferable vote according to
>> the rules of the Electoral Reform Society.
> STV is a good system, although I'm not thoroughly familiar with it (our
> Student's Union used Alternative Transferable Vote - I can't remember what
> the difference was, possibly something to do with quorum?)

The problem is that ATV is designed for electing one candidate from a
list, I think, while STV can elect n from it.

> Sounds like a TUC conference :S So long as we don't have to suffer
> composites ;) 

I'm not familiar with the TUC, really.  What is a composite?

> I would possibly think about a longer time-frame though - I
> think every quarter is more likely to work better, esp. if we set ourselves
> a decent quorum. The Chair would also have the power to call EGM as wall as
> GM, so it shouldn't prevent the association acting. But I think once a month
> is too possibly too much! I suppose it depends on the number and frequencies
> of resolutions though. 

The "meetings" (I do not specify physical meetings) where resolutions
are made were for the executive, not the membership.  I don't know if
you got that.  I've deliberately given the executive too much power,
but I seem to have forgotten to require scrutiny by the membership,
although I specify consultation.  Can someone suggest a suitable form of
words to achieve that?

> It probably depends on how resolutions are submitted. Generally, they should
> be proposed by a member and seconded by another. [...]

Agreed.  It's a very simple twit filter and probably worth doing, but
this procedure should be specified in one of the first resolutions, I
think?  It may be desirable to change such things later and I'd like to
have as little as possible in the charter that is not the basic
organisational structure.  Is that a worthwhile aim?  I don't know.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]