Re: Is the default process correctly described?

[Jon Bosak <bosak@boethius.eng.sun.com>]

[Terry Allen:]

| | What other aspects of my interpretation of the default process are in
| | question?
| 
| We have the question (best settled in conversation rather than in
| email) of interpreting the language about informal meetings.  It's
| apparently very trivial.

I think that your questions were not about the expansion but about my
rambling and inconsequential commentary on that point.  I take back my
commentary; does that help?

| I first looked at p. 82, where I find that "A meeting of an
| assembly is a single official gathering of its members in one
| room or area ...."  If we are going to permit telephonic
| meetings, we may need to say explicitly that they're governed
| by Robert's, because that language doesn't cover distributed
| meetings.  ("Robert's for Chat Rooms" can't be far away.)

Or reckon with telephone conferences somehow.  Good point.

| I also had not understood:
| |       When a meeting is adjourned for lack of a quorum, it shall
| |       not be necessary to give any notice of the time and place
| |       of such adjourned meeting or of the business to be
| |       transacted at such meeting, other than by announcement at
| |       the meeting at which the adjournment is taken, except as
| |       provided in Section 10 of this Article.
| | 
| | 	 [Otherwise any two members could generate a process
| | 	 blizzard by continously invoking their right to call a
| | 	 meeting and thus calling into action the system for
| | 	 giving notice of meetings.]
| 
| Please explain.  Can they not anyway?  

Yes, probably.  Maybe.  Possibly.

I didn't follow up on your question because it seemed to be about my
comment rather than about the passage itself, and I realized (a) that
I wasn't sure enough about the interpretation of this passage to have
spoken in the first place, and (b) I didn't care enough about it to
really figure it out.  But if you want to think this through and let
us know, feel free.

Jon