Gary c Tesser

I'm not sure exactly what is going on, or exactly what is being asked. I will say I'm fairly confident that Robert's Rules has nothing in it to prohibit taking an informative poll (not a "straw poll"). ANd shooting in the dark, I'll bet there's nothing in your bylaws to prohibit it, either.

Calm down. It takes us a minute.

Thanks for the back-up.

The fiscal year is not pertinent. ANd installation is a ceremony that has no clout. Officers take office upon election, unless the bylaws say otherwise. M. Schmidt, do your bylaws say nothing about it?

A pleasure to be of assistance.

Robert's Rules has no say on this kind of question. Or to put it another way, nothing in RONR would prohibit it. -- or require it.

J. J. nails it here. Apodictically (as Nero Wolfe might have said).

No, I was just paying more attentive attention.

Great Steaming Cobnuts, SG is for once agreeing with me that chaos is chaos. (Cf. Gary's Rules of Chaos. Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr.)

So ... Dan and I have been addressing each other by our given names since I guess the late 1990's, and, third-person, usually by honorific; the same with me and George Mervosh and Richard Brown, &c, &c. So I don't see how or where Transpower fits into this; maybe judging by his cognomen he's going to star in an upcoming Avengers movie and we can see him with his shirt off, and preferably with his hair parted on the side like a grown-up.

Yer such a pollyanna! You think you know how to pronounce "pjag", just 'cause you spent part of the previous millennium (or however parliamentarians and other college graduates spelled it in the Millenium Edition * ) in Korea and got fluent in the language, huh?!?? (I'll help. Listen, pjag: Keepo' ingfa udu. (That's Klingon for "Nine-year-old boy, take your bath now." I figure to get to common ground with common sentiments. It's why I voted for Donald Trump last November.) __________ *No, George, I'm not gonna let it go, it's a running gag. Or a funny-always, as Heinlein characterised the quality in "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress," 1966; or maybe it's just my OCD.

I'm looking at the RONR MB thread "http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/30455-bylaws-what-takes-precedent/?page=2" . (Actually I copied the URL from where I was; I'm not specifically referring to Page 2.) Transpower says this: [Posted Friday at 09:45 AM ·] .... And: Daniel was a member of the authorship team, but he is no longer. Mr Honemann's reply includes this incidental [Aw nuts, I can't chop out all the chaff: please disregard it, pretend you're all George Mervosh]: Posted Friday at 10:06 AM · Report post "And "Daniel" is a bit presumptuous, I'm afraid." *** Then Greg Goodwiller said: [Posted Saturday at 01:17 PM · Report post] On 8/18/2017 at 10:06 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said: "And "Daniel" is a bit presumptuous, I'm afraid." Thank for this, Mr. Honemann. I have always appreciated the level of decorum that is practiced in this forum. It honors our profession. And I regret the extent to which this particular thread has not done so. *** But I'm nopt (the "p" is silent, or a typo) sure what the protocol is. Generally I myslef try to refer to posters with an honorific-appended surname in the third person*, but I use first names in the second person with those with whom I'm familiar: i.e., George or Richard (sometimes "Rich", depending on when I can guess he prefers), and even, to the point, "Dan". ("Dan" is a special case. Back in the 1890's, when he and I were little kids and the RONR MB website was in its formative stages, he posted only as "Dan" -- partly, I suspect, because he was trying to conserve bandwidth -- remember, in the 1890's, the Internet was powered by coal -- so I was perforce obliged to respond to his posts by calling him "Dan", because that was all I knew him as. He evolved to "Daniel Honemann" and eventually to "HIs Honemannship," but that didn't last long and he ratchetted it back -- there's probably no documentary evidence for this deluded period, probably only occurring during the 1950's.) So I'm wondering why Transpower's saying "Daniel" is presumptuous. My gut tells me yes it is, but not why. _________ * For the love of heaven, there's got to be a simpler description for the term, somebody please remind me what it is.

I believe you are missing the point of the interpretive principle. You're all so awesomely patient and excruciatingly respectful. I got to go take today's furosamide.

Josh, you are giving details to what I summarized --would you agree?

Yes, of course. I should just let go of this aethereal gunk about a 2/3 vote, since it seems arcane and abstruse when discussed in the abstract, especially when JJ brings it up with three or four specific cases in mind which he cheerily juggles in his mind without bothering to tell us whichever one he's talking about in any particular post. (Great Steaming Cobnuts, Gary, quit whining. That's somebody else's job. Preferably Josh Martin's;' but he never does, at least on the Internet, so maybe he fobs it off onto some aspiring RP.)

You sure? It looks to me more like chaotic gibberish, and while I would agree that general consent is the most probable interpretation of what we can get from it, I'm by no means confident, and I'm pretty sure Don B isn't very confident either. And I bet some of his other members.

I think some of us are misinterpreting OP Jay's remark. When he says -- -- I think he's talking about a possibly small group that's concerned about procedure here. Note that Jay mentions further proceedings, motions, and resolutions, and for all we know, a majority of the entire membership (I'm talking about popularity, not a parliamentary threshold) was there and participating. Jay, how about it?

That's what I'm tangling mylesf in knots about.

OK, I got that wrong: overlooking that, while the base motion is pending, a motion to leave executive session is an interrupting question of privilege.

How's that exactly?

That's what I'd have thought, but when Mr Brown and Mr Honemann get into it, I get under a desk.

(Open prefatory remark.) My previous posts, as probably Nancy N.'s and any of my other sock puppets's, were predicated on the naive assumption that this might be an ongoing discussion (as long as necessary -- not that you're not welcome here, on The World's Premiere Internet Parliamentary Forum (Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr.) (RONR MB, we call it -- we're generally an informal lot, even Dan Honemann who doffed his fishing duds and smile, and donned an expensive-looking suit and grump when he retired), Don, and for that matter you should pick up your copy of RONR - In Brief posthaste -- I mean, drop everything and phone around and find a nearby bookstore that has it and go there without delay and buy it and read it right there while you stand there at the "cash register" (actually stepping courteously aside so that the other customers can buy their own copies and stand there reading with you); and then start answering questions here yourself -- welcome to the club, the dues are very low and the character references are laughable, note the perennially lurking presence of the 2FP; and then, maybe in a week or so if you're (I'm still talking to Don B, it's a long sentence) a cunctator (I'm still talking to Don B, he likes obscure words, or so I infer from his writing style, or maybe mine), pick up your copy of RONR, 11th Ed, and read it maybe ten pages a day, and you'll have gone through it cover-to-cover in a coupla months -- less if, on the first reading (of several, you're young yet) you skip stuff of no immediate need like organizing a convention, dissolving an organization, or forming one; but Don, this thread is a pleasant conversation, as are all conversations with you, and, some would say, some conversations with me, but it's best if we wrap it up, let you know what you need to, and move on), but given my track record, I can't be sure to keep an eye on this thread, so I'll have to jump the gun and uncharacteristically get to the point. (Close prefatory remark.) If this rule, about the board of directors and the annual meeting, has actually, properly, been adopted as a provision of the bylaws, it can be argued (perhaps as a question of bylaws-interpretation) that this is the only requirement for amending the bylaws; for example (and maybe most importantly, even maybe the only thing), there is no requirement for previous notice or a 2/3 vote.

Don, I hate to be tiresome (actually I don't at all mind being tiresome, I just want to evade people's noticing it), and none of us wants to be overly picky (except maybe JJ, they've got a bedbug infestation in Philly and he's constantly scratching), but: was that rule adopted into the bylaws, or not? This is important. (JJ, you see where I'm going with this, yes?) (Edited to add: yeah, what Richard said. :-))

Lannister, what was well over a 2/3 vote? (O, and I agree with the sentiments suggested by Ms. Dinner's questions.)

Man, I love these long threads. Man, I love typing at four in the morning. Man, I'm so relieved that Mr Honemann is still asleep. Man, I so tremble for whenever Shmuel wakes up. He can be such a grump sometimes.