Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a percentage
(of something or the other)?
Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership were
to double in a year or two.
Dewole.
On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote:
On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett
Hi Alan,
On 28 Sep 2016 09:58, "Alan Barrett" wrote:
> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of 30
resource members in the future.
>
30 Resource Members sounds good to me.
I am fine using the percentage (~2%) instead, to ensure automatic
adjustment of quorum that corresp
A percentage is good. However, I think that one needs to specify if a
quorum can include online participants and then how to carer for the
voting...
As the stats show, a large number of people voted, but might night have
been present and a number of onsite votes were probably proxies (although
that
It makes sense for a meeting quorum to include online participants since
the point of that option is to ensure that members do not miss out
because of inability to physically attend. On the operational side, a
meeting that fails to meet quorum for whatever reason also means more
resources expen
I think revisiting the quorum every three or five years would work.
This should be based upon:
1 - Total number of Members
2 - Number of 'active' members (those that exercise their vote)
3 - Number of (unique) members that attend AIS
4 - Number of (unique) members that attend the year end meeting.
Hi Saul,
On 28 Sep 2016 11:33, "Saul Stein" wrote:
> A percentage is good. However, I think that one needs to specify if a
> quorum can include online participants and then
I would prefer we leave this out so that we have discretion to use onsite
members, and revert to remote participants only if
I think we also need to differentiate between quorum for vote vs quorum for
membership. (Even if not normally – in the context of this discussion)
Proxies count btw – the rules on proxies are very clear – a person carrying a
proxy represents the member who gave the proxy in every sense of the wo
Hi Chair,
"do we have an update as this was pending a board seating/meeting which i
believe has happened in the recent past.?"
I think this question from Noah remains unanswered. Am I right?
2016-09-16 14:53 GMT+00:00 Noah :
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Sunday Folayan
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to achieve a
representative outcome. However this opens another question when it comes to
“representative” and actual votes.
We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member views.
The current system is o
On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote:
> Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to
> achieve a representative outcome. However this opens another
> question when it comes to “representative” and actual votes.
>
> We need to explore a way that also addresses actively
+1 Mark,
I would have thought this was pretty plain – it’s a global practice in business
and I’d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other such things
hadn’t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company act I’ve ever
read.
It’s the same way with shareholder meetings –
+1
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Alston
wrote:
> +1 Mark,
>
> I would have thought this was pretty plain – it’s a global practice in
> business and I’d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other
> such things hadn’t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every compan
Hi Guys,
So, let another exciting announcement – I apologize for the cross posting to
both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in what
follows.
Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There are
now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in
Well done Andrew and Liquid,
Way to go, where next?:-)
Regards
On 9/29/16, Andrew Alston wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> So, let another exciting announcement – I apologize for the cross posting to
> both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in
> what follows.
>
> Yesterday
Well done.
On Sep 29, 2016 09:51, "Barrack Otieno" wrote:
> Well done Andrew and Liquid,
>
> Way to go, where next?:-)
>
>
> Regards
>
> On 9/29/16, Andrew Alston wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > So, let another exciting announcement – I apologize for the cross
> posting to
> > both lists but I figu
15 matches
Mail list logo
