RE: [registrars] Notices from Boardrooms.org

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>Bob,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>It sounds like it is just clarifying what we already
had&nbsp;intended, correct? And&nbsp;are we all&nbsp;going to&nbsp;see
it again some time before the vote opens?<BR></div>
<div>Tim<BR></div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE:
[registrars] Notices from Boardrooms.org<BR>From: "Robert F. Connelly"
&lt;BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Fri, June 17, 2005 11:27
pm<BR>To: "Registrars Constituency"
&lt;registrars@xxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>At 01:28 PM 6/17/05, Rob Hall
wrote:<BR>&gt;Bob,<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;We already have rules of procedures
and bylaws, do we not ?<BR><BR>Dear Rob: Elana formed a By-Laws Task
Force about two years ago -- which <BR>did nothing. &nbsp;Bhavin formed
one, which is now in place. &nbsp;The RoP just don't <BR>work.
&nbsp;Part II appears to have been drafted by cutting Part I and
pasting <BR>it into Part II. &nbsp;There is no reference to "seconding
a nomination". &nbsp;It <BR>says there needs to be a nomination and two
endorsements. &nbsp;Throughout Part <BR>II it refers to "motion" rather
than "nomination". &nbsp;It says "the motion <BR>shall be discussed for
14 days".<BR><BR>Elana set aside RoP Part II and I was directed to
ignore it and use a more <BR>conventional nomination and seconding
format.<BR><BR>Jon has crafted an excellent amendment to my original
motion, which I have <BR>accepted as a "friendly"
amendment.<BR><BR>Hope this fills in the
background.<BR><BR><BR>&gt;Rob. </BLOCKQUOTE>