From jane at whiteoaks.com Sun Jan 7 14:13:04 2001 From: jane at whiteoaks.com (Jane Houston Jones) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] [Fwd: [pastro] unfinished Telescope] Message-ID: <3A58E9F0.3328E5C1@whiteoaks.com> FYI, Jane -- Jane Houston Jones San Rafael, CA jane@whiteoaks.com http://www.whiteoaks.com -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Matt Cary Subject: [pastro] unfinished Telescope Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 09:52:59 -0800 Size: 2471 Url: http://www.sjaa.net/pipermail/sjaaboard/attachments/20010107/f63ca490/attachment.mht From jvn at sjpc.org Mon Jan 8 00:04:03 2001 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] [Fwd: [pastro] unfinished Telescope] References: <3A58E9F0.3328E5C1@whiteoaks.com> Message-ID: <3A597473.4F7A@sjpc.org> > Subject: [pastro] unfinished Telescope > Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 09:52:59 -0800 > From: Matt Cary > I took a telescope-making class from John Dobson several years > {snip} > In the meantime, I've realized that I'm far more interested in > binoculars Hi, Matt, If no one has already asked for your scope: please consider donating it to the SJAA. We are a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, so you'd get a modest tax deduction. We would finish the scope and add it to our loaner program, so you would also have the satisfaction of knowing that it was being used to teach newcomers. Clear Skies! -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Tue Jan 9 22:09:05 2001 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] My absence Message-ID: <3A5BFC81.3261@sjpc.org> Hi, All, I'll be out of town Wednesday morning thru Friday afternoon (or Saturday), visiting my daughter near Sutter Creek. I expect to be at the Board meeting Saturday evening. Clear Skies! -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Thu Jan 11 17:29:36 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Here is the proposal I intend to bring up at the meeting on Saturday. This is essentially identical to the text I sent on 12/14/2000. Insofar as it will affect them immediately, I've cc-ed future board members Paul Mancuso and Bob Havner. Their input is of course welcome. >>>>>>>>> in Article 3 section 7 after the phrase "communications equipment" add the phrase "or electronic mail". Append the following to Article 3 section 9: The Board may conduct meetings via electronic mail subject to the following conditions: 1. Any member may ask to be copied on all email between Board members which discusses official business. Members may comment on the ongoing discussion. It shall be the responsibility of the member to provide a working email address. 2. When a formal motion is anticipated that anticipation must be prominently noted in the discussion. The actual call for votes may not occur less than 72 hours from the time that notice is sent unless this requirement is waived by unanimous consent of the Board. 3. Prior to the call for votes, any director may request that the matter be postponed until the next physical meeting. That request will be honored unless all of the other directors vote to deny it. The request may come in any form but must be delivered promptly to all directors. 3. After a call for votes a majority of votes in the affirmative must be cast within 96 hours in order for a motion to be adopted; otherwise it fails. 4. The director that called for the votes will tabulate the results and post them as soon as one of the following occurs: all directors have cast their votes, 24 hours have passed since the call for votes and a majority has been achieved either for or against the motion, 96 hours have passed. 5. A director may grant to another director a proxy to vote in his place in all matters covered in this section. A director may abstain in advance for a specific period of time from all board business. Such proxies and notices of abstention shall be filed with the minutes of the proceedings of the board. 6. The text of the motion and each director's vote shall be transcribed into the minutes. An archive of the entire discussion will be kept electronically and made available to the membership upon request for at least 90 days. 7. No expenditure greater than $100 may be authorized outside a physical meeting except by unanimous written consent as defined below. "Written" in this context shall include electronic mail. 8. Failure to participate in the discussion or to vote via electronic mail shall not be construed as "missing" a board meeting for the purposes of section 17 below. <<<<<<<<<<< -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Thu Jan 11 19:45:34 2001 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting References: Message-ID: <3A5E7DCF.E62C2F3A@znet.com> 3. Prior to the call for votes, any director may request that the matter be postponed until the next physical meeting. That request will be honored unless all of the other directors vote to deny it. I'd prefer to refer this to a simple majority. Don't like that idea. It's like a 'filibuster' where, if anyone other than Bill O decides to sandbag, it will probably fail just out of "no activity." We'll see. You'll be bringing text to the meeting? d -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Thu Jan 11 20:45:43 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting In-Reply-To: <3A5E7DCF.E62C2F3A@znet.com> Message-ID: on 1/11/01 7:45 PM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: > 3. Prior to the call for votes, any director may request that the matter be > postponed until the next physical meeting. That request will be honored > unless all of the other directors vote to deny it. > > I'd prefer to refer this to a simple majority. Don't like that idea. > It's like a 'filibuster' where, if anyone other than Bill O decides to > sandbag, it will probably fail just out of "no activity." > We'll see. I agree in principle. But I thought we would have a better chance of getting the whole thing adopted with this provision. If BillO fucks things up too often we can change it again later. > You'll be bringing text to the meeting? That is the text. Do you want me to bring hard copy? -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Fri Jan 12 01:45:53 2001 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting References: Message-ID: <3A5ED251.A37@aenet.net> Bill Arnett wrote: > 4. The director that called for the votes will tabulate the results and post > them as soon as one of the following occurs: all directors have cast > their votes, 24 hours have passed since the call for votes and a majority > has been achieved either for or against the motion, 96 hours have passed. In a setting like this, the Chair or presiding officer normally would tabulate the votes on the fly (voice vote or show of hands...show of e-mail?) and announce the results. Here, you've got whichever director doing that function. Is there some specific reason you put that in? This isn't a big enough of a deal for me to vote against your proposal, but it is a very unusual arrangement. For one thing, it dilutes the position of the chair, making everyone a presiding officer to some extent. I for one would prefer that the part about the director who called the vote be omitted and leave it default to the presiding officer. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Fri Jan 12 02:25:45 2001 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting References: <3A5E7DCF.E62C2F3A@znet.com> Message-ID: <3A5EDBA9.1CC9@aenet.net> Dave North wrote: > > > 3. Prior to the call for votes, any director may request that the matter be > > postponed until the next physical meeting. That request will be honored > > unless all of the other directors vote to deny it. > > I'd prefer to refer this to a simple majority. Don't like that idea. > It's like a 'filibuster' where, if anyone other than Bill O decides to > sandbag, it will probably fail just out of "no activity." I can see your point, it's not good to have things such that one person can stop us in our tracks. On the other hand, this isn't a filibuster, just the right to hold the vote off until the next face-to-face meeting (which is what we do now anyway). And even then, there is the possibility of an override...unless two people want the vote held off (about 1/4 of the board). The only case I can think of where this would really be an issue is if something urgent came up (requiring a board vote) that couldn't wait for the next meeting. But how often does that happen? Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Fri Jan 12 02:53:22 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting In-Reply-To: <3A5ED251.A37@aenet.net> Message-ID: on 1/12/01 1:45 AM, Gary Mitchell at wb6yru@aenet.net wrote: > Bill Arnett wrote: > >> 4. The director that called for the votes will tabulate the results and post >> them as soon as one of the following occurs: all directors have cast >> their votes, 24 hours have passed since the call for votes and a majority >> has been achieved either for or against the motion, 96 hours have passed. > > In a setting like this, the Chair or presiding officer normally > would tabulate the votes on the fly (voice vote or show of > hands...show of e-mail?) and announce the results. Here, you've > got whichever director doing that function. Is there some > specific reason you put that in? My reasoning was that I didn't want to make any extra work for the chair. It seemed to me that the person proposing the motion should care enough about it to be willing to do this little bit of work. Another point that just occurred to me is that the normal chairman may not be able for some reason to act quickly in every case (like he may be out observing instead of arguing in cyberspace :-) ; presumably the one asking for the vote is more likely to be available. > This isn't a big enough of a deal for me to vote against your > proposal, but it is a very unusual arrangement. For one > thing, it dilutes the position of the chair, making everyone > a presiding officer to some extent. > > I for one would prefer that the part about the director who > called the vote be omitted and leave it default to the > presiding officer. It's no big deal to me. How 'bout if I change it to "The results will be tabulated and posted as soon as ..."? In real life this is such a small amount of work that it's not worth worrying about. And it's not really necessary in the first place: if the votes are posted to the list then everyone can keep his own tabulation and everyone will know the results independently at the same time anyway. It is only necessary to compile the final tally for the minutes. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Fri Jan 12 03:20:10 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting In-Reply-To: <3A5EDBA9.1CC9@aenet.net> Message-ID: on 1/12/01 2:25 AM, Gary Mitchell at wb6yru@aenet.net wrote: > Dave North wrote: >> >>> 3. Prior to the call for votes, any director may request that the matter be >>> postponed until the next physical meeting. That request will be honored >>> unless all of the other directors vote to deny it. >> >> I'd prefer to refer this to a simple majority. Don't like that idea. >> It's like a 'filibuster' where, if anyone other than Bill O decides to >> sandbag, it will probably fail just out of "no activity." > > I can see your point, it's not good to have things such that one > person can stop us in our tracks. On the other hand, this isn't > a filibuster, just the right to hold the vote off until the next > face-to-face meeting... First of all, I apologize for my earlier crude language. Secondly, there really is a deeper reason for this provision. The main objection to the whole idea of email board action is that some people are better able to express themselves orally than they are in writing. If a situation were to arise where such a director felt strongly about an issue but felt that his objections were not being heard then it seems fair that he be given an opportunity to make his case in the best way that he can. After all, the reason we have a board instead of a single Leader is so that all of our varying experiences and perspectives can be brought to bear on the issues. On important issues we should make sure each of us has the opportunity to express his opinion fully. I trust that this provision will not be abused; that a halt to the discussion will be called for only when it's really important and that an override of such a request will be made only when it is even more important. I doubt either case will ever arise in practice. > The only case I can think of where this would really be an issue > is if something urgent came up (requiring a board vote) that > couldn't wait for the next meeting. But how often does that > happen? I can't think of a case. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Fri Jan 12 09:12:29 2001 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting References: Message-ID: <3A5F3AFC.358A828C@znet.com> Bill: >>Do you want me to bring hard copy?<< Yup. Gary: >>I for one would prefer that the part about the director who called the vote be omitted and leave it default to the presiding officer.<< Something along this lines may be best. On the other hand, a central tabulator (web enabled) could be used so all could view the progress... >>On the other hand, this isn't a filibuster, just the right to hold the vote off until the next face-to-face meeting (which is what we do now anyway).<< True enough. >>The only case I can think of where this would really be an issue is if something urgent came up (requiring a board vote) that couldn't wait for the next meeting.<< Also true. But the idea is to streamline those meetings somewhat by removing finicky detail (I think) and speeding up nonFinancial action. If there is a clause that obviates such a possibility too easily, the entire thing could be an exercise in futility. If any one director is unavailable or fails to check their email for the requisite period of time, a single objection hangs everyone. Through inattention or even system failure, this could happen entirely too often, and it seems like bad design to me. Just a thought. Bill: >>if the votes are posted to the list then everyone can keep his own tabulation and everyone will know the results independently at the same time anyway. << A good counterpoint. >>I trust that this provision will not be abused; that a halt to the discussion will be called for only when it's really important and that an override of such a request will be made only when it is even more important. I doubt either case will ever arise in practice.<< And a good countercounterpoint. This is one of those cases where I can see the possibility of abuse, in particular since bylaws are designed not only for the current members, but for the long haul. We have a reasonably cooperative group right now, but I'm not sure we should saddle later groups with such a system weakness in the event that a group becomes contentious, and such a provision gets used for its "irritation" value. The board has, in the past, been contentious -- and I presume it will once again be so sometime in the future. Every board that lasts (as a continuing entity) has such periods. I admit this is more a concern with system design than any real event forseen in the near future, but then again, that's what such design is all about. It's not a big deal, but it's a deal. And bear in mind we've been hassling for some time over provisions that probably seemed completely harmless when the bylaws were first enacted that almost immediately turned out to be archaic or merely a drag. Best, if possible, to avoid saddling further boards with such legacies, methinks. But not of any huge importance -- they can always amend at a later date, However, such changes made "under duress" are often tainted by the obvious pressure they place on the members whose "abuse" is being "corrected." And during a period of contention, it may not be so easy to do so. As a thought experiment, I wonder how easy it would be to pass the Bill of Rights today? dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Fri Jan 12 09:43:03 2001 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Re: CalStar 2001 References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010112093625.00a1cec0@pop.rahul.net> Message-ID: <3A5F4223.28D170CD@znet.com> >>I need to start moving on this year's event at LSA in order to coordinate with the ranger and get information out to S&T and Astrnomomy. I think there's a board meeting tomorrow night. I want to get the board's approval for the SJAA to be host again this year. Can you put it on the agenda and I'll attend the meeting?<< You bet. I'm forwarding this to the board... would you prefer an early time, or later in the meeting so you don't have to sit through the preliminaries? Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Treasurer at sjaa.net Fri Jan 12 10:22:30 2001 From: Treasurer at sjaa.net (Mark Taylor) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting In-Reply-To: References: <3A5EDBA9.1CC9@aenet.net> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010112100224.0284bba0@indigoskies.com> At 03:20 AM 1/12/2001 -0800, Bill Arnett wrote: >Dave North wrote: > > 3. Prior to the call for votes, any director may request that the matter be > > postponed until the next physical meeting. That request will be honored > > unless all of the other directors vote to deny it. > >I'd prefer to refer this to a simple majority. Don't like that idea. I strongly agree with this sentiment. Why should one "mode" of casting votes require a different kind of majority than another? Either we make it so the board can vote as effectively by email as in person (inclusive of the fact that a simple majority can pass a motion), or what good is the change for? I can easily envision every electronic call for vote being postponed in this way, effectively castrating the whole point of this modification. > The main >objection to the whole idea of email board action is that some people are >better able to express themselves orally than they are in writing. And some people are better able to express themselves in writing, especially after they have had time to consider the options, "sleep" on it, and give the vote they really support. This is MUCH better (IMO) than being forced to make a snap call at a meeting where there is no time to think things through. >If a >situation were to arise where such a director felt strongly about an issue >but felt that his objections were not being heard ... Heck, I regularly get that sense (for myself and others) at the live meetings where everyone often talks out of turn (and usually all at once). At least with email you don't end up with half of your message delivered, someone else's delivered, and then the other half of your text arriving. >then it seems fair that he >be given an opportunity to make his case in the best way that he can. Good; And since I feel that I can convey my thought more clearly by email, that should also be permitted -- to be fair. > After >all, the reason we have a board instead of a single Leader is so that all of >our varying experiences and perspectives can be brought to bear on the >issues. On important issues we should make sure each of us has the >opportunity to express his opinion fully. I don't see how email is any less effective at this than a live exchange of ideas some 99% of the time. The exception being if someone has some physical object that needs to be shown/seen. Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Fri Jan 12 13:15:21 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting In-Reply-To: <3A5F3AFC.358A828C@znet.com> Message-ID: on 1/12/01 9:12 AM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: >... > We have a reasonably cooperative group right now, Yes, and I'm trying to keep it that way be designing this is such a way that everyone can be happy with it. If I fail well then the majority will have its way. But it's worth a try. > but I'm not sure we > should saddle later groups with such a system weakness in the event that > a group becomes contentious, and such a provision gets used for its > "irritation" value. I think I would resign from a board that got that bad. Such an action would be extremely petty and childish. Surely we can maintain a higher standard than that even when we disagree about the real issues. > ... they can always amend at a > later date, However, such changes made "under duress" are often tainted > by the obvious pressure they place on the members whose "abuse" is being > "corrected." > And during a period of contention, it may not be so easy to do so. Or maybe the opposite. When factions get their hackles up it's even easier to screw the minority. > As a > thought experiment, I wonder how easy it would be to pass the Bill of > Rights today? That's a scarey thought! But this provision is exactly in tune with the spirit of the Bill of Rights: it is intended to protect a small minority that might otherwise be trampled by the majority. But this can go only so far. If the provision is regularly abused it will be repealed. Lets hope it doesn't come to that. Mark Taylor: > ...And since I feel that I can convey my thought more clearly by > email, that should also be permitted -- to be fair... Of course, I agree with that. But we need to be fair to "both sides". -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Treasurer at sjaa.net Fri Jan 12 14:06:27 2001 From: Treasurer at sjaa.net (Mark Taylor) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting In-Reply-To: References: <3A5F3AFC.358A828C@znet.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010112135929.02863220@indigoskies.com> At 01:15 PM 1/12/2001 -0800, Bill Arnett wrote: >Mark Taylor: > > ...And since I feel that I can convey my thought more clearly by > > email, that should also be permitted -- to be fair... > >Of course, I agree with that. But we need to be fair to "both sides". So then perhaps the language should be that officers can call for a live vote for one of two reasons: After attempting to make their point electronically and failing to do so in a self-satisfactory way, or if they need to present physical materials. I still feel it's a bad policy to make it purely "on demand", as that encourages folks to not even try to debate and vote over email. As it stands, the proposal makes it very easy to force any motion to a live vote, and there is no provision for forcing things the other way if the majority approves. This just smells wrong to me. Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Treasurer at sjaa.net Fri Jan 12 14:19:19 2001 From: Treasurer at sjaa.net (Mark Taylor) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010112135929.02863220@indigoskies.com> References: <3A5F3AFC.358A828C@znet.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010112141711.00afb798@indigoskies.com> At 02:06 PM 1/12/2001 -0800, Mark Taylor wrote: > So then perhaps the language should be that officers can call for a Oops, I of course meant "directors", not "officers". Though I wonder if limiting this power to officers would be at all valuable, so as to give extra credence to a call for live vote? (two keys to launch the missile and all that jazz) Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From akkana at shallowsky.com Fri Jan 12 14:45:27 2001 From: akkana at shallowsky.com (Akkana) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010112100224.0284bba0@indigoskies.com>; from Treasurer@sjaa.net on Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 10:22:30AM -0800 References: <3A5EDBA9.1CC9@aenet.net> <5.0.2.1.0.20010112100224.0284bba0@indigoskies.com> Message-ID: <20010112144527.D23109@netscape.com> Mark Taylor writes: > Either we make it so the board can vote as effectively by email as in > person (inclusive of the fact that a simple majority can pass a motion), > or what good is the change for? I agree with the others who have expressed this opinion: I don't think one person should be enough to postpone voting. I'd like to see it take at least 1/3 (though a majority, as other people have requested, would also be okay) of the board to postpone a vote. (I also agree with Mark's discussion of why, but won't repeat it since he says it well enough that I don't have anything to add.) ...Akkana -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Fri Jan 12 15:33:37 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting In-Reply-To: <20010112144527.D23109@netscape.com> Message-ID: on 1/12/01 2:45 PM, Akkana at akkana@shallowsky.com wrote: >... I'd like to > see it take at least 1/3 (though a majority, as other people have > requested, would also be okay) of the board to postpone a vote... Well *I* would be happy with that. But we haven't yet heard from our colleagues on the other side. There are only 9 logical possibilities here. The number of directors necessary to postpone a vote can be: 1 - maximum protection of the minority (my original proposal) 2 - 3/4 required to overrule the minority (7/9=.77) 3 - 2/3 required to overrule the minority 4 - minimal supermajority 5-9 - makes no sense; a majority can simply vote the motion down In practical political terms, I would prefer that the whole proposal gets as large a majority as possible, even though it looks like we'll have at least a bare majority in any case. But if we can pick up another vote or two by including a stronger "Bill of Rights" ("Rights of BillO"? :-) then I'm in favor of such a move. Unless, of course, it would lose a vote on the other side. Do any of you feel that strongly about it? -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Treasurer at sjaa.net Fri Jan 12 19:27:18 2001 From: Treasurer at sjaa.net (Mark Taylor) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting In-Reply-To: References: <20010112144527.D23109@netscape.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010112174846.00afb798@indigoskies.com> At 03:33 PM 1/12/2001 -0800, Bill Arnett wrote: >There are only 9 logical possibilities here. The number of directors >necessary to postpone a vote can be: > 1 - maximum protection of the minority (my original proposal) An important clarification: This discussion is about "opinions which are shared by a minority of the voters" (i.e. "unpopular opinions"). It is not about "the opinions of minorities" (as in "a social issue"). Let's not risk politically charging the discussion as if it's about a social minority -- It's a math issue, not a social one. Perhaps where you say "minority opinion" you should say "unpopular opinion" (or "less popular" if you want to be PC about it). Anyway, AFAIK, democracies do not exist to ensure that unpopular opinions are protected from being dismissed; they exist to make sure popular opinions prevail. > 2 - 3/4 required to overrule the minority (7/9=.77) > 3 - 2/3 required to overrule the minority > 4 - minimal supermajority > 5-9 - makes no sense; a majority can simply vote the motion down That seems way too complex. I say "Let's just K.I.S.S." ;-) Plainly and simply put: E-voting rules should be just like the rules for live voting, with the acknowledgement that there is no real need to collect all of the remaining votes once a simple majority has voted on the same side. As for the "fairness ground rules" of participating in an e-vote, it seems to me that they should parallel that of live voting. i.e.: * If at least 5 people do not participate (by at least registering their choice to abstain) there is no quorum and no vote. * If everyone participates, that's great. Easy math. * If anyone abstains, the definition of "majority" is adjusted accordingly. * If someone does not reply *at all* in a reasonable period of time, they are "absent" from the meeting, their vote is forfeited, and the definition of majority is changed accordingly. * If a majority (however it is defined at the time) of voters are in agreement, one way or the other, then the outcome of the vote is decided by them. * If the vote is 4-to-2 with 2 abstains and 1 "absentee", the one can't possibly affect the outcome anyway so it's still decided by the 4. All this is of course said within the constraints of prior discussions that everyone deserves a chance to state their case/thoughts... If someone simply doesn't participate in the discussion and/or vote after being given sufficient opportunity to do so, then they are absent from the vote. But if they participate, and after *trying* to state their case they feel a live vote is needed to do justice to their issue, then they can ask for a "live vote" -- to which a majority must agree (or at least a third-party motion and second). I believe that is important to prevent filibustering, etc. PLEASE... If we're going to revise our meeting and voting rules, let's make sure the revision will "have teeth" and be truly useful to us in performing club business. Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Sat Jan 13 16:42:51 2001 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Calendar, March 2001 Message-ID: <3A60F60B.20FB@sjpc.org> Hi, All, Here's the Good Stuff for the March calendar. March 2 -f- Astronomy Class III, 7:30 pm, hall, Houge Park 2 -f- Houge Park star party Sset 6:03 pm, 51% moon sets 1:32 am. 10 -s- General Meeting, Peggy Bernard will tell about the Vulcan Project. 16 -f- Houge Park star party Sset 6:16 pm, 47% moon rises 1:55 am. 17 -s- Fremont Peak star party Sset 6:15 pm, 38% moon rises 2:42 am. 24 -s- Coe and Peak star party Sset 6:02 pm, 0% moon rises 6:44 am. 30 -f- Astronomy Class IV, 7:30 pm, hall, Houge Park 30 -f- Houge Park star party Sset 6:29 pm, 36% moon sets 0:30 am. General Meeting topics: April 8 -- Sunday -- Swap & Auction May onward -- speakers needed. School events -- current list is on my web site; here it is as of Jan.13: 2001 Jan.17 -- Bernal Intermediate, SE San Jose Jan.18 -- Lyndale Elementary, NE San Jose Jan.24 -- Bernal, rain date Jan.31 -- Bernal, rain date Feb.13 -- John Muir Middle, Daytime. Feb.28 -- Rosemary Gardens / Bachrodt School Mar. 1 -- Laurelwood Elementary, E. San Jose Mar. 6 -- Randol Elementary, SE San Jose -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Sun Jan 14 00:40:39 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] email voting: final approved version Message-ID: Here is the final text of the amendment we passed this evening with the changes and renumbering. This will be "Amendment 3". I will update the bylaws WWW page shortly. Jim: this needs to be saved with the official club documents which I believe re in your custody. in Article 3 section 7 after the phrase "communications equipment" add the phrase "or electronic mail". Append the following to Article 3 section 9: The Board may conduct meetings via electronic mail subject to the following conditions: 1. Any member may ask to be copied on all email between Board members which discusses official business. Members may comment on the ongoing discussion. It shall be the responsibility of the member to provide a working email address. 2. When a formal motion is anticipated that anticipation must be prominently noted in the discussion. The actual call for votes may not occur less than 72 hours from the time that notice is sent unless this requirement is waived by unanimous consent of the Board. 3. Prior to the call for votes, any director may request that the matter be postponed until the next physical meeting. That request will be honored unless 2/3 of the directors vote to deny it. The request may come in any form but must be delivered promptly to all directors. The motion for postponement is not subject to a request for postponement. 4. After a call for votes a majority of votes in the affirmative must be cast within 96 hours in order for a motion to be adopted; otherwise it fails. 5. The votes will be tabulated and posted as soon as one of the following occurs: all directors have cast their votes, 24 hours have passed since the call for votes and a majority has been achieved either for or against the motion, 96 hours have passed. 6. A director may grant to another director a proxy to vote in his place in all matters covered in this section. A director may abstain in advance for a specific period of time from all board business. Such proxies and notices of abstention shall be filed with the minutes of the proceedings of the board. 7. The text of the motion and each director's vote shall be transcribed into the minutes. An archive of the entire discussion will be kept electronically and made available to the membership upon request for at least 90 days. 8. No new expenditure greater than $100 may be authorized outside a physical meeting except by unanimous written consent as defined below. "Written" in this context shall include electronic mail. 9. Failure to participate in the discussion or to vote via electronic mail shall not be construed as "missing" a board meeting for the purposes of section 17 below. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Sun Jan 14 00:27:01 2001 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Email voting References: <3A5F3AFC.358A828C@znet.com> Message-ID: <3A6162D5.35A0@aenet.net> Dave North wrote: > It's not a big deal, but it's a deal. And bear in mind we've been > hassling for some time over provisions that probably seemed completely > harmless when the bylaws were first enacted that almost immediately > turned out to be archaic or merely a drag. > Best, if possible, to avoid saddling further boards with such legacies, > methinks. But not of any huge importance -- they can always amend at a > later date, However, such changes made "under duress" are often tainted > by the obvious pressure they place on the members whose "abuse" is being "corrected." This is a good point. However, such instances also may point out flaws that aren't apparent when the thing was originally written. > And during a period of contention, it may not be so easy to do so. As a > thought experiment, I wonder how easy it would be to pass the Bill of > Rights today? Take solace in the fact that any errors we may inadvertently put in the bylaws can be corrected in a likewise fashion and nobody is likely to get hurt or be deprived of anything. It's a good thing this isn't Congress. ;) Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From koopm at best.com Sat Jan 20 18:05:17 2001 From: koopm at best.com (Michael Koop) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 Message-ID: There is a new loaner scope donated to the SJAA from John Hata. It's an 18" f/4 Sky Designs Truss Dobsonian. It is a nicely finished plywood box with aluminum trusses. John says that he had the mirror tested up at Chabot who found that it was about 1/4 wave with a turned edge. John Kuklewicz (for those who remember him) had one of these scopes and Steve Gottlieb lists a 17.5" Sky Designs scope on his webpage. (Hmm, I wonder if his was an 18" with a turned edge). See link for picture. http://redshift.home.pipeline.com/whopix.htm Bob Havner and I went over to John's to pick up the scope since Bob has a pickup truck. I also wanted Bob to try the scope out first since he has used SJAA scope #8 (our 14" truss mount) with success. () I was concerned that an 18" scope would be too big for the loaner program. It turns out that this design is about the same weight as the 14" scope and is easy enough for one person to move. It is not a modern, nesting cage design, but it dose not take up too much storage space. I think this scope can work well in the loaner program. John told me he was donating the scope without any conditions so, if it does not work out, we can sell the scope. What needs to be done: a) need to make a storage box for the mirror during transport. I do not know if you can transport this mirror in its cell. Bob is going to ask his father who is retired and does woodworking as a hobby to make one. b) need to make/buy a shroud cloth c) Needs a 2" to 1.25" Adapter. John kept that piece. d) we need some eyepieces for this scope, maybe a Panoptic e) Storage bag for truss poles Jim VN, I need you to write the donation letter to John thanking him for the donation. He paid $2300 for the scope, so I guess that is the value of the donation. John Hata 980 La Barbera Drive San Jose, CA 95126 I would like to offer John a lifetime membership (email Ephemeris) in the SJAA, if he is interested. Both Bob and I are eager to try out the scope. I'll let you know when we get first light on SJAA Loaner Scope #18. Clear Skies, Mike Koop -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Sat Jan 20 19:24:40 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: on 1/20/01 6:05 PM, Michael Koop at koopm@best.com wrote: > There is a new loaner scope donated to the SJAA from John Hata. It's an > 18" f/4 Sky Designs Truss Dobsonian... Neat! > Needs a 2" to 1.25" Adapter... I've got at least 4 of them. I'll donate one. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Sun Jan 21 00:52:16 2001 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18, appraisal References: Message-ID: <3A6AA340.603B@sjpc.org> Michael Koop wrote: [big snip] > Jim VN, I need you to write the donation letter to John thanking him for > the donation. > He paid $2300 for the scope, so I guess that is the value of the donation. The IRS (Pub.561) says that determination of value is the responsibility of the donor, but it seems cowardly of us to hide behind that, and not put an estimate in the letter. If the donor (surviving spouse) has no idea what the scope is worth, we simply must supply it. But the value isn't simply what was paid for it new, but what it would bring in its present condition. If it is in good order, I'd expect it to go for about 3/4 of "street" price (our auction). If other accessories are included or omitted, the price would need to be adjusted. I usually include an estimate unless the donor is very experienced, Rich Neuschaefer, for example. > John Hata > 980 La Barbera Drive > San Jose, CA 95126 > > I would like to offer John a lifetime membership (email Ephemeris) in the > SJAA, if he is interested. Nice touch! > Both Bob and I are eager to try out the scope. I'll let you know when we > get first light on SJAA Loaner Scope #18. Do you re-use the number if a scope is retired or sold? Seems maybe we shouldn't. -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Mon Jan 22 20:59:06 2001 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 References: Message-ID: <3A6D0F99.3445F784@znet.com> Mike: >>Steve Gottlieb lists a 17.5" Sky Designs scope on his webpage. (Hmm, I wonder if his was an 18" with a turned edge).<< No, my understanding is it was built around a Coulter 17.5-inch mirror that was fully acceptable. >>I think this scope can work well in the loaner program.<< Sounds great! >> need to make/buy a shroud cloth<< Not necessarily. For example, Ed Erbeck never had one on his 18". d -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From akkana at shallowsky.com Mon Jan 22 21:23:33 2001 From: akkana at shallowsky.com (Akkana) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 In-Reply-To: ; from koopm@best.com on Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 06:05:17PM -0800 References: Message-ID: <20010122212333.E32429@shallowsky.com> Michael Koop writes: > There is a new loaner scope donated to the SJAA from John Hata. It's an > 18" f/4 Sky Designs Truss Dobsonian. It is a nicely finished plywood box That's great! Wow, what a generous donation. > b) need to make/buy a shroud cloth I agree with Dave that we don't need one (I seldom use mine -- it seems to hurt the image, as far as I can tell so far, but I use it when there's a lot of dust or stray light or rude visitors that I think might spit on the mirror or something). But I just got my sewing machine back and could potentially sew a simple one (no guarantees, the dratted machine might break again). > d) we need some eyepieces for this scope, maybe a Panoptic I tend to think that if we get only a few expensive eyepieces for the loaner program, they should be loaners by themselves and not be tied to one particular scope (why should only the people who have a truck big enough for an 18" get to use the premium eyepieces?) The idea of getting a Panoptic is good (let's get several, maybe a 15 and a 19 and what else? -- we can afford it and I bet a lot of people would like to try them). Or we could get a Panoptic for the 18" plus one or two for general loaners. > e) Storage bag for truss poles How long are the poles, and how big around is the bundle? There are a couple of fairly easy ways to make truss tube bags (again, I might be able to make one if the sewing machine survives the project), or for shorter lengths you can sometimes find a premade bag or use one of those lightweight Orion dob covers (good for up to 48-50") that the Cupertino store is always remaindering. > I would like to offer John a lifetime membership (email Ephemeris) in the > SJAA, if he is interested. That seems very fair -- I'd have no problem with that. ...Akkana -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Tue Jan 23 08:48:00 2001 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 References: <20010122212333.E32429@shallowsky.com> Message-ID: <3A6DB5BF.462602DC@znet.com> >>I would like to offer John a lifetime membership (email Ephemeris) in the SJAA, if he is interested.<< I missed seeing this in my crush to get caught up on email. I agree. That makes it three... does something like this require a vote? Probably. I suspect the idea might have been to call for a vote, but there hasn't been a motion yet... dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Tue Jan 23 11:24:12 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 In-Reply-To: <3A6DB5BF.462602DC@znet.com> Message-ID: on 1/23/01 8:48 AM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: >>> I would like to offer John a lifetime membership (email Ephemeris) in > the SJAA, if he is interested.<< > > I missed seeing this in my crush to get caught up on email. I agree. > That makes it three... does something like this require a vote? > Probably. I suspect the idea might have been to call for a vote, but > there hasn't been a motion yet... I think the above qualifies as the start of the 72 hour period of discussion prior to a call for votes. Anyway, I'm in favor of giving him a free membership. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil Tue Jan 23 12:09:08 2001 From: bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil (Bartolini, Jim) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 Message-ID: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B602ACD942@pom-emh1.army.mil> From: Bill Arnett >>Anyway, I'm in favor of giving him a free membership. Same here (official vote). Jim ........... :-) ================================================= Jim Bartolini ================================================= -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Tue Jan 23 12:31:20 2001 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 In-Reply-To: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B602ACD942@pom-emh1.army.mil> Message-ID: Billa: >> Anyway, I'm in favor of giving him a free membership.<< JimB: >> Same here (official vote). << Same here (also official vote). That's three... ... Dave North -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From akkana at shallowsky.com Tue Jan 23 12:46:13 2001 From: akkana at shallowsky.com (Akkana) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 In-Reply-To: ; from north@znet.com on Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 12:31:20PM -0800 References: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B602ACD942@pom-emh1.army.mil> Message-ID: <20010123124613.A64102@shallowsky.com> Dave North writes: > Billa: >> Anyway, I'm in favor of giving him a free membership.<< > > JimB: >> Same here (official vote). << > > Same here (also official vote). That's three... Make that four. ...Akkana -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Tue Jan 23 12:46:28 2001 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 References: Message-ID: <3A6DEDA4.363@sjpc.org> Dave North wrote: > > Billa: >> Anyway, I'm in favor of giving him a free membership.<< > > JimB: >> Same here (official vote). << > > Same here (also official vote). That's three... > > ... Dave North Yea. As implied in earlier note, now official. That's four. -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Tue Jan 23 14:09:21 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 In-Reply-To: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B602ACD942@pom-emh1.army.mil> Message-ID: > Same here (official vote). Recall that the recently adopted change to the Bylaws says "...The actual call for votes may not occur less than 72 hours from the time that notice is sent unless this requirement is waived by unanimous consent of the Board..." So we can't "officially" vote yet. We have to wait 72 hours for everyone to have a chance to comment. Unless we can get EVERYONE to agree to waive this rule, we have to wait until Friday. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil Tue Jan 23 14:09:46 2001 From: bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil (Bartolini, Jim) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 Message-ID: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B602ACDD01@pom-emh1.army.mil> > From: Bill Arnett [SMTP:bill@nineplanets.org] > >>We have to wait 72 hours for everyone to >>have a chance to comment. Unless we can get EVERYONE to agree to waive this >>rule, we have to wait until Friday. I move we waive the 72 hour waiting period..... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Tue Jan 23 14:22:11 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 In-Reply-To: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B602ACDD01@pom-emh1.army.mil> Message-ID: on 1/23/01 2:09 PM, Bartolini, Jim at bartolij@pom-emh1.army.mil wrote: >> From: Bill Arnett [SMTP:bill@nineplanets.org] >> >>> We have to wait 72 hours for everyone to >>> have a chance to comment. Unless we can get EVERYONE to agree to waive > this >>> rule, we have to wait until Friday. > > I move we waive the 72 hour waiting period..... I agree. But before we all chime in with "me, too", how 'bout if someone calls BillO? -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Tue Jan 23 14:40:25 2001 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 References: Message-ID: <3A6E0859.F71@sjpc.org> Bill Arnett wrote: > > on 1/23/01 2:09 PM, Bartolini, Jim at bartolij@pom-emh1.army.mil wrote: > > >> From: Bill Arnett [SMTP:bill@nineplanets.org] > >> > >>> We have to wait 72 hours for everyone to > >>> have a chance to comment. Unless we can get EVERYONE to agree to waive > > this > >>> rule, we have to wait until Friday. > > > > I move we waive the 72 hour waiting period..... > > I agree. But before we all chime in with "me, too", how 'bout if someone > calls BillO? No need. THe next Ephemeris doesn't go out for a few weeks. I suggest we simply wait until Friday. -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From snelson at thermawave.com Tue Jan 23 16:46:01 2001 From: snelson at thermawave.com (Steve Nelson) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Re:(un)final (un)approved version of minutes -(Jim has seen) Message-ID: [2nd pass, corrections to me] San Jose Astronomical Association Board meeting, Houge Park, San Jose, Jan 13, 2001 Called to order by President Dave North at 6:30 PM. All directors present, except Treasurer Mark Taylor, who arrived before third item of business. [Mike Koop, Jim Van Nuland, Bill Arnett, Bill O'Shaughnessy, Jim Bartolini, Akkana Peck, Gary Mitchell] 1) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed to pay insurance bill, late due to mail system. 2) Moved by Bill Arnett and seconded to pay AANC bill. Passed unanimously. [Treasurer later noted that these yearly bills, from previously approved vendors, are not new expenditures, and are therefore regularly paid by the Treasurer.] 3) Accept donation of $750 for education and public awareness of astronomy from Andrah Foundation. Committee appointed by President for these funds: Jim Van Nuland, Bill O'Shaughnessy, Gary Mitchell, Jim Bartolini. Member Steven Nelson suggested consideration of setting up permanent "Public Education Fund". 4) Motion to amend Bylaws introduced by Bill Arnett. This amendment was previously forwarded to Board members by email. Second and amendment by Dave North to renumber subsections, to 9 and add "new" between "no expenditures" in 8. Unanimously accepted as amendment to original motion. -- Motion tabled for next discussion item. -- 5) Mark Wagner made a presentation to the Board to request sponsorship of the All Cal Star Party, at Lake San Antonio during the expected dates of Sept. 13-16, 2001. The 2000 event had 75-85 telescopes and about 100 people. The 2001 event would use the "overflow" campground and have 400 scopesites, with a separate "total dark" area. Mike Koop moved to "Officially sponsor" the event as described (similar to last year) and in particular to cover the event with SJAA insurance. This was seconded and unanimously approved. --4) Bylaw amendment discussion resumed. Bill A. offered to amend section 3 of his motion. Wording "all of the other directors" changed to "2/3 of the other directors". Add sentence at end "The motion for postponement is not subject to a request for postponement." This amendment was unanimously accepted. Amendment to SJAA Bylaws, Article 3 Section 7 and addition of subsections 1-9 of Article 3 Section 9 was unanimously accepted. The final text is: In Article 3 section 7 after the phrase "communications equipment" add the phrase "or electronic mail". Append the following to Article 3 section 9: The Board may conduct meetings via electronic mail subject to the following conditions: 9.1. Any member may ask to be copied on all email between Board members which discusses official business. Members may comment on the ongoing discussion. It shall be the responsibility of the member to provide a working email address. 9.2. When a formal motion is anticipated that anticipation must be prominently noted in the discussion. The actual call for votes may not occur less than 72 hours from the time that notice is sent unless this requirement is waived by unanimous consent of the Board. 9.3. Prior to the call for votes, any director may request that the matter be postponed until the next physical meeting. That request will be honored unless 2/3 of the directors vote to deny it. The request may come in any form but must be delivered promptly to all directors. The motion for postponement is not subject to a request for postponement. 9.4. After a call for votes a majority of votes in the affirmative must be cast within 96 hours in order for a motion to be adopted; otherwise it fails. 9.5. The votes will be tabulated and posted as soon as one of the following occurs: all directors have cast their votes, 24 hours have passed since the call for votes and a majority has been achieved either for or against the motion, 96 hours have passed. 9.6. A director may grant to another director a proxy to vote in his place in all matters covered in this section. A director may abstain in advance for a specific period of time from all board business. Such proxies and notices of abstention shall be filed with the minutes of the proceedings of the board. 9.7. The text of the motion and each director's vote shall be transcribed into the minutes. An archive of the entire discussion will be kept electronically and made available to the membership upon request for at least 90 days. 9.8. No new expenditure greater than $100 may be authorized outside a physical meeting except by unanimous written consent as defined below. "Written" in this context shall include electronic mail. 9.9. Failure to participate in the discussion or to vote via electronic mail shall not be construed as "missing" a board meeting for the purposes of section 17 below. INFORMATION ITEMS Beginner's classes were discussed by Akanna and Mike. In particular the schedule has to be adjusted for proper access to planets. First date in March for planets (who?), and March 30th for Moon. An introduction to telescopes is also needed. Moved, seconded and passed to adjourn about 7:45 PM. Minutes by recording secretary Steven Nelson. Minutes to be adopted by Board and signed by SJAA Secretary at Feb. 2001 Board meeting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jane at whiteoaks.com Tue Jan 23 22:55:00 2001 From: jane at whiteoaks.com (Jane Houston Jones) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] FPOA Dates for 2001 Message-ID: <3A6E7C44.26616BAC@whiteoaks.com> Ron Dammann sent this today. 2001 public program nights: April 14,21,28 May 12,19,26 June 2,16,23,30 July 14,21,28 August 11,18,25 Sept. 8,15,22 Oct. 6,13,20 Star-B-Que August 18th -- Jane Houston Jones San Rafael, CA jane@whiteoaks.com http://www.whiteoaks.com -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Dammann, Ron" Subject: RE: [FPOA] FW: [AANC Contacts] AANC Conference - April 7 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:28:02 -0800 Size: 2002 Url: http://www.sjaa.net/pipermail/sjaaboard/attachments/20010123/81d24e3f/attachment.mht From wb6yru at aenet.net Wed Jan 24 00:10:09 2001 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 References: <20010122212333.E32429@shallowsky.com> <3A6DB5BF.462602DC@znet.com> Message-ID: <3A6E8DE1.4AFC@aenet.net> Dave North wrote: > > >>I would like to offer John a lifetime membership (email Ephemeris) in > the SJAA, if he is interested.<< A moderate size club like this has to be very careful about granting unpaid life memberships. It can be a serious long-term financial load. This became a big problem in another club I'm in. However, in this case, if it only includes an *e-mail* version of the newsletter, then that's different...I'll go along with it too. > I missed seeing this in my crush to get caught up on email. I agree. > That makes it three... does something like this require a vote? > Probably. I suspect the idea might have been to call for a vote, but > there hasn't been a motion yet... It looks like people are voting, but I never saw an official motion. If there wasn't one, here it is: I move we offer John Hata a life membership in SJAA (with only an e-mail version of the newsletter) for his donation of the 18" telescope. If there was a motion and I missed it...sorry, never mind. :) Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Wed Jan 24 00:19:09 2001 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 References: Message-ID: <3A6E8FFD.57BE@aenet.net> Bill Arnett wrote: > > on 1/23/01 2:09 PM, Bartolini, Jim at bartolij@pom-emh1.army.mil wrote: > > >> From: Bill Arnett [SMTP:bill@nineplanets.org] > >> > >>> We have to wait 72 hours for everyone to > >>> have a chance to comment. Unless we can get EVERYONE to agree to waive > > this > >>> rule, we have to wait until Friday. > > > > I move we waive the 72 hour waiting period..... > > I agree. But before we all chime in with "me, too", how 'bout if someone > calls BillO? I must be missing something...Sorry for being dense, but could someone please explain to me why we need to be in a big hurry with this? Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Wed Jan 24 00:34:56 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Re:(un)final (un)approved version of minutes -(Jim has seen) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Looks good to me. Thanks, Steve! -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Wed Jan 24 00:42:10 2001 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 References: <3A6E8FFD.57BE@aenet.net> Message-ID: <3A6E9561.E3964650@znet.com> Gary: >>Sorry for being dense, but could someone please explain to me why we need to be in a big hurry with this?<< I doubt it, so I won't try (possible mutual density). I suspect Friday will be just fine. Your implied vote, by the way, makes it six. Any delay can be overridden, assuming no change. Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Wed Jan 24 00:43:59 2001 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Re:(un)final (un)approved version of minutes -(Jim has seen) References: Message-ID: <3A6E95CD.E10807EC@znet.com> Looks perfect Steve. If you wish to add after: Member Steven Nelson suggested consideration of setting up permanent "Public Education Fund". ...that I supported this idea (I did) I'll have no objection. Your call. Dave North -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Treasurer at sjaa.net Wed Jan 24 09:47:14 2001 From: Treasurer at sjaa.net (Mark Taylor) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 In-Reply-To: <3A6E9561.E3964650@znet.com> References: <3A6E8FFD.57BE@aenet.net> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010124094538.02446748@indigoskies.com> At 12:42 AM 1/24/2001 -0800, Dave North wrote: >Your (Gary's) implied vote, by the way, makes it six. Any >delay can be overridden, assuming no change. I was gonna be a "good boy" and wait out the timer, but I might as well just go ahead and imply my vote in advance, too. 7 now? M -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Wed Jan 24 14:06:09 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010124094538.02446748@indigoskies.com> Message-ID: on 1/24/01 9:47 AM, Mark Taylor at Treasurer@sjaa.net wrote: > At 12:42 AM 1/24/2001 -0800, Dave North wrote: >> Your (Gary's) implied vote, by the way, makes it six. Any >> delay can be overridden, assuming no change. > > I was gonna be a "good boy" and wait out the timer, but I might as > well just go ahead and imply my vote in advance, too. 7 now? The 2/3 override applies only to the request for delay, not the beginning of voting. Do I hear another motion for changing the bylaws? .... -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Thu Jan 25 00:56:17 2001 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Check for insurance Message-ID: <3A6FEA31.693E@sjpc.org> Just looked at my on-line checkbook account, and I see the check to the insurance was cleared on the 24th. Presumably this means that they have accepted our application. I had a phone call from their office, asking about the swap meet, in particular, how many commercial vendors (none). She was happy with that and said that she didn't expect any problems. Awaiting the actual policy.... -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil Thu Jan 25 07:38:26 2001 From: bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil (Bartolini, Jim) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 Message-ID: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B602B228D4@pom-emh1.army.mil> > From: Bill Arnett [SMTP:bill@nineplanets.org] > >>The 2/3 override applies only to the request for delay, not the beginning of >>voting. Do I hear another motion for changing the bylaws? .... Nope..... Jim ........... :-) ================================================= Jim Bartolini ================================================= -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Fri Jan 26 13:56:12 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: on 1/23/01 2:09 PM, Bill Arnett at bill@nineplanets.org wrote: >... We have to wait 72 hours... Time's up. Now we can vote. The motion is that: > we offer John Hata a life membership in SJAA (with only > an e-mail version of the newsletter) for his donation of the 18" > telescope. I vote "yes". -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil Fri Jan 26 13:54:26 2001 From: bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil (Bartolini, Jim) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 Message-ID: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B602B506FA@pom-emh1.army.mil> > From: Bill Arnett [SMTP:bill@nineplanets.org] > >>Time's up. Now we can vote. The motion is that: >>we offer John Hata a life membership in SJAA (with only >>an e-mail version of the newsletter) for his donation of the 18" >>telescope. >>I vote "yes". I also vote "yes". Jim ........... :-) ================================================= Jim Bartolini ================================================= -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Treasurer at sjaa.net Fri Jan 26 14:37:58 2001 From: Treasurer at sjaa.net (Mark Taylor) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20010126143701.02683158@indigoskies.com> Still a "Yes" (or is that a "Yea"?) from me. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From akkana at shallowsky.com Fri Jan 26 14:56:08 2001 From: akkana at shallowsky.com (Akkana) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 In-Reply-To: ; from bill@nineplanets.org on Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 01:56:12PM -0800 References: Message-ID: <20010126145608.C24272@shallowsky.com> > > we offer John Hata a life membership in SJAA (with only > > an e-mail version of the newsletter) for his donation of the 18" > > telescope. Yes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Fri Jan 26 16:09:20 2001 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 References: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B602B506FA@pom-emh1.army.mil> Message-ID: <3A7211B0.19E7@sjpc.org> Bartolini, Jim wrote: > > > From: Bill Arnett [SMTP:bill@nineplanets.org] > > > >>Time's up. Now we can vote. The motion is that: > >>we offer John Hata a life membership in SJAA (with only > >>an e-mail version of the newsletter) for his donation of the 18" > >>telescope. > >>I vote "yes". > > I also vote "yes". > > Jim ........... :-) I vote yes. JVN. Strange happening: Bill's note calling for the vote is timestamped 2 minutes before JBart's reply to it. Someone has a clock set wrong! Go to (right side of page) and pick out a nice little program to set your clock from the internet. Just one file, not even "installed", as the download is the actual program. Run it, click on help, and you'll have all you need to do. Clear Skies and correct time! -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Fri Jan 26 16:20:36 2001 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 References: <20010126145608.C24272@shallowsky.com> Message-ID: <3A72143A.FBAE2287@znet.com> I think this is the deciding vote: Yes. Done, no? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil Fri Jan 26 16:18:13 2001 From: bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil (Bartolini, Jim) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 Message-ID: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B602B50A3E@pom-emh1.army.mil> > From: Dave North [SMTP:north@znet.com] > >>I think this is the deciding vote: >>Yes. >>Done, no? Done, yes..... Jim ........... :-) ================================================= Jim Bartolini ================================================= -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From mojo at whiteoaks.com Fri Jan 26 17:00:37 2001 From: mojo at whiteoaks.com (Morris Jones) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:10 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Postal Permit (fwd) Message-ID: Renita is a board member for the SFAA. I'm not sure who among you all has the answers to these questions, but I'm hoping someone will step up with what they know. :) Mojo -- Morris Jones <*> San Rafael, CA mojo@whiteoaks.com http://www.whiteoaks.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:46:27 -0800 From: Renita Mock To: Morris Jones Subject: Postal Permit Hi Mojo, I noticed the SJAA newsletter has a non-profit postage paid permit. Can you tell me a little more about it? - How much does it cost per year? Or is there just a one-time, set-up fee? - Is the permit for first class postage? - How is the postage paid for, i.e. do you count the number of pieces, cut a check for the correct amount and pay when you get to the post office? - Does the non-profit status have any particular meaning -- is it cheaper than regular corporate mail? - Are there any other advantages, other not having to take time to put on stamps? I've checked the US Postal Service web page without much luck. I've been hinting that we ought to do this for our bulletin, but have gotten little response. Thanks for your help. Renita -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Fri Jan 26 17:22:58 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:10 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 In-Reply-To: <3A72143A.FBAE2287@znet.com> Message-ID: on 1/26/01 4:20 PM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: > I think this is the deciding vote: > > Yes. > > > Done, no? The outcome is not in doubt. But we must wait 24 hours before recording the tally to allow those who have not yet cast their votes to do so. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Fri Jan 26 17:35:30 2001 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:10 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 References: Message-ID: <3A7225C0.F6649CED@znet.com> >>But we must wait 24 hours before recording the tally to allow those who have not yet cast their votes to do so.<< No problem. Anybody got the membership info...? Primarily name, address (not strictly necessary) email address (pretty necessary) and all that? I can "prepare" the entry... d -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Sat Jan 27 00:08:58 2001 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:10 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 References: Message-ID: <3A72821A.23F8@aenet.net> Bill Arnett wrote: > > on 1/23/01 2:09 PM, Bill Arnett at bill@nineplanets.org wrote: > > >... We have to wait 72 hours... > > Time's up. Now we can vote. The motion is that: > > > we offer John Hata a life membership in SJAA (with only > > an e-mail version of the newsletter) for his donation of the 18" > > telescope. I vote yes. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From koopm at best.com Sat Jan 27 12:43:52 2001 From: koopm at best.com (Michael Koop) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:10 2006 Subject: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 Message-ID: <01c088a1$dc080840$265156ce@koopm.vip.best.com> > I agree. But before we all chime in with "me, too", how 'bout if someone > calls BillO? And Gary Said: >I must be missing something...Sorry for being dense, but could >someone please explain to me why we need to be in a big hurry >with this? Before I cast my vote, I sure agree with Gary on this. Remind me never to go to a gun shop with board members. ;-) > > we offer John Hata a life membership in SJAA (with only > > an e-mail version of the newsletter) for his donation of the 18" > > telescope. Koop votes Yes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From mojo at whiteoaks.com Sat Jan 27 13:00:42 2001 From: mojo at whiteoaks.com (Morris Jones) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:10 2006 Subject: [SJAABoard] New list manager Message-ID: In line with making it easier for SJAA members to subscribe to or participate in the board email list and discussions, I have moved the SJAABoard list to a new mailing list manager, called mailman. I've been using mailman with good success while it was being beta tested for its 2.0 release. I've installed the released version now, and moved the sjaaboard email list to it. I think all the pertinent details for you to maintain your "account" on the list are in the welcome message. I'll be keeping an eye on things to make sure they don't go awry. Mojo -- Morris Jones <*> San Rafael, CA mojo@whiteoaks.com http://www.whiteoaks.com From bill at nineplanets.org Sat Jan 27 15:07:10 2001 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:10 2006 Subject: [SJAABoard] Re: [BOARD] New Loaner Scope #18 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: OK, time's up on the vote count. We have 8 yes votes (me, Mark, Akkana, JVN, JB, Dave, Gary and Mike) and one (BillO) not voting. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/