On Sun, September 1, 2013 3:11 pm, Craig Sanders wrote: Spamming me (with proxy forms) is fine. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

Hi Craig, [Hope you don't mind: I'm cc'ing this to luv-main, since other people might also be interested.] There's no official list. You could post to luv-main asking for volunteers. (Only so much the committee can do). It's not really spamming Lev, as spamming the LUV Secretary. Technically, the rules say that proxies have to be sent to the LUV Secretary. If you're giving your proxy to (say) Lev, then (strictly speaking) he doesn't even need to know about it until the meeting. I suggested cc'ing your proxy email to the person you're giving your proxy to mostly just as a courtesy and to avoid any misunderstandings, like that the intended proxy holder couldn't actually make it anyway. Really, the option of nominating the President as proxy makes it hardly necessary to have a separate list of proxy volunteers. Like I've said before, a member can hold proxies both for and against a resolution, and vote them accordingly. However, if you felt comfortable giving your proxy only to somebody who you were sure shared your opinion, then I guess you could call for such a volunteer on luv-main -- though there's not a lot of time left to arrange all that. Makes sense? -- Smiles, Les.

[In reply to Craig Sanders:] Well, technically it's LUV Secretary who has to collate all the proxies, so really it's not much burden on the receiver of the proxy, in this case Lev. And it's about the same work for LUV Secretary whether the proxies go to one person or many, maybe a tiny bit less if they all go to one person. -- Smiles, Les.

On Mon, September 2, 2013 9:59 am, Daniel Jitnah wrote: Apropos, a member is entitled to submit a proxy to any other member. The suggestion of nominating the chairperson was, barring disaster, one can be reasonably confident that the chairperson will turn up to the meeting! -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

On Mon, September 2, 2013 4:39 pm, Les Kitchen wrote: I must bring up this anecdote; I was once part of a tabletop roleplaying club in Perth that decided to review their entire constitution point-by-point, either offering a new rule or confirming the existing clause. Each item required a two-thirds majority to pass. When it came to the membership list, the existing clause was to have to a membership list in alphabetical order. This lead to a debate that lasted the better part of an ninety minutes. The vote received majority, but not the necessary two-thirds. The clause was not confirmed and thus deleted. An alternative motion was put, just to have a membership list - with the order unspecified. This too received a majority, but enough of the supporters of the previous motion voted against the alternative, ensuring that did not receive the necessary two-thirds majority either. It was this point, I got up and left, ensuring that the assembled gamers were informed (I could have been a more polite) that they had just decided that the club would *not* have a membership list at all. If I recall correctly, they hastily decided to revisit their options. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GCertPM, MBA mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt