STATE-COORD-L ArchivesArchiver > STATE-COORD > 2003-12 > 1071171710
From: "Angie Rayfield" <>
Subject: RE: [STATE-COORD] Bylaws Revision
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:41:59 -0600
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!
>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
>of "frivolous" to be declared, except by the CCs of XXGenWeb
>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
>level, but wouldn't it be a lot of fun to present the general
>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
>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