[KI-LC] Strawman language for amending the motion to amend the Operating Procedures

[Joe Andrieu]

Brett,

The LC was under the impression that it had to approve the changes per 
the language approve by the BoT. That was the motion that was tabled at 
the last LC meeting.

Was that post-BoT approval unnecessary? If so, I you are most likely 
correct.

If, however, there were changes to the langauge--and I think there 
were--then we have, at a minimum, still need the LC to approve the same 
language the BoT approved.

I'm also not sure if the questions raised about ambiguity were resolved.

Trent or Colin, could you summarize the issues and how they were resolved?

-j

On 10/19/2009 11:22 AM, Brett McDowell wrote:
> It seems I missed a lot of the fun with this OP change while I was on vacation.
>
> So, to wrap this up...
>
> 1) the LC voted on Operating Procedure changes - approved
> 2) the BoT voted on those changes as well - approved
> 3) there was a debate raised via email in LC over interpretation and
> application, etc. -- resolved
>
> and therefore now the staff should
>
> 4) put forward the all-member ballot
>
> Correct?
>
>
> Brett McDowell | http://info.brettmcdowell.com | http://kantarainitiative.org
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Robin Wilton
> <futureidentity at fastmail.fm>  wrote:
>> OK, fair enough as far as C is concerned. Sorry I missed that one.
>>
>> R
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LC mailing list
>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>
>

-- 
Joe Andrieu
joe at switchbook.com
+1 (805) 705-8651
http://www.switchbook.com