Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Your block doesn't stand here anymore. We are here because your blocked before.Now it's time to vote.
Ok, everyone: Harry has blocked, so we will move to voting. Please watch for the post on the voting page. I will also then lock this thread to avoid confusion.
Still being combative.Please refer to the instructions in the proposal.You know what your choices are. Please pick one, and end the combat. Your next such posts will be deleted. This is now the FOURTH time your behavior on this forum has had to be addressed.
Already asked and answered. Please refer to the questions and answers to/from Kevin and Art.You are being needlessly combative. If you wish to vote no, you are welcome to do so.
GBGP could restrict proxies to only council delegates.I would prefer to handle the matter of proxies outsidr of this proposal, in the same way the issue of length of tome as a registered Green is being handled by a separate proposal.This proposal only deals with one meeting, so it would be inappropriate for such a change here.Besides, decentralization. If GBGP wants proxies, they can have them for their council members if they wish.
Folks, now with 8 votes either way from locals, we are now at quorum.As a reminder, this proposal ends on Saturday night. Thank you.
Harry, you are reminded yet again to keep your comments in line with the proposal and according to the code of conduct of this forum.Personal attacks are not allowed. Ask clarifying questions, offer friendly amendments, or vote. Those are your options.EDIT: you may disagree and say why as well, as long as they comport with the code of conduct.
Members, with 8 of you voting one way or another, this proposal is at quorum.As a reminder, the vote ends Saturday.
Yeah, you're probably right, Harry.I copied from your last proposal, and I thought rounding down from 7.2 would be more fair to you. 12 x .60 = 7.2Either way.
Kevin, the agenda is in fact listed here as “tentative,” because the process for finalization is delineated in the proposal:"The agenda will be finalized via friendly amendments offered at a forum workgroup to be created, entitled "2017 Annual Meeting Workgroup."I'm happy to entertain your friendly amendment regarding the date. What is your suggestion?If you are not able to attend, I would suggest that GBGP adopt some sort of proxy arrangement and ratify it in your bylaws, so that your voice can be heard.
I am noting that you disagree. The fact remains that members should take their own initiative to keep up to date with the discussions here. All these posts have been announced via email, and to confuse this discussion with a completely different one is disruptive.This date is closer to the two-year mark for elections.What is your concern about this date?
