World: r3wp

Should we add Aye and Nay as logic words in REBOL? :-)

In any case, I vote Aye.

Though I kind of like a slight twist of adding an 's, now that I 
say it out loud; users.r. Can't remember if that was on the block 
or not.

Point of Information;


users.r was not on the list.  But this vote is the first official 
name pass.  There will be a way to ammend the name, but it will require 
a 3/4 majority vote to open the issue, according to existing Roberts 
Rules, which still require some form of ammendment and ratification 
for this esteemed group.

I vote Nay for user.r

..but I could be persuaded to vote for users.r unless RT does the 
sensible thing and changes the default file extension to .reb

I vote Aye for IRUA

Point of information;  Sorry.  Can't vote for anything but user.r 
yet.  It's a top down pass.  If user.r does not win a majority RABBLE 
is up next.

Understood

aye

Brian ... how is that IRUA had no negative references? I sent my 
email one day ago, hopefully it was there in time, and I am nearly 
sure I voted for IRUA with some negativity. First - it is not real 
world, second I am not sure what the abbreviation means, I mean - 
having it on my t-shirt is far from being cool, if even I can't depict 
the abbreviation. And third, it reminds me of IRA :-)

My email was sent 10:29 GMT + 2

real world = real word

Point of information for the esteemed member;  Yes the mail was delayed, 
but the original lists and counts were recinded.  A new motion was 
brought forward with the new counts and sort.  user.r was elevated 
to highest on the list, IRUA relegated to third.  The current vote 
is for  user.r  if it fails to receive a majority then RABBLE will 
be tabled for vote.


Point of information;  Raw data can be requested from btiffin using 
the email in Altme.  The data will also be posted to the home site 
archive for historical purposes once the archive is established.

Point of information;  The chair would like to remind the house, 
that due to the nature of the motion at hand, an ojection raised 
by any member will halt the proceeding and the issue will return 
to the table for open debate.

Nay

my user.r vote - Aye

Point of Information:  A quorum has been reached.   The aye's have 
it.

The chair is pleased to announce the Official Formation of  user.r

With this issue now complete, as per the opening the of the meeting 
I move to adjourn.

To Recap;

user.r has won a quorum majority and will be the Official name of 
the association

A home site is being prepared on Qtask.com, under a project name 
of  user.r

The IRUA and IRUA chat forums will remain for 72 hours, after which 
they will be renamed.


The first meeting of user.r is scheduled to begin Saturday August 
11th 2007 at 6pm GMT.  This meeting will be held in Qtask, under 
the user.r project.  Anyone wishing to attend, please accept the 
invitations and please request an invitation by dropping an Altme 
note to btiffin.


Word of this new association will be spread across other online systems 
as well.

The chair would like to thank all participants.

I second the motion to adjourn, and add a belated Aye for user.r.

The chair would llike to once again thanks all participants.

This meeting stands adjouned.

Um, at what point did we determine Qtask as the home site (the sixth 
motion)?

This, Mr. Chairman, is a travesty. How do you account for this oversight?

Mr. Chairman, your bias towards Qtask is well documented. I recommend 
a private IRUA task force to look into possible influence peddling 
and other corruptions commited by IRUA's executive branch.

Terry: I can understand your frustration. No decision has been made 
taken and my understanding is that the use of Qtask is a temporary 
convenience.

This was posted in the user.r chat conversation:


The choice of the Qtask system will still be open for democratic 
objection, but democracy was taking too long.

Democracy is taking too long, so I'll accept Qtask
 ... travesty at best.

The decision to use Qtask has clearly been made here. To suggest 
that once the user.r Qtask group has started, that a vote to move 
will be sucessful is naive, and obvious to Qtask supporters.

Barging ahead...Qtask home site is being built. :)
 -- B. Tiffin

That smiley is incriminating

You concern that once the user.r Qtask group is started there will 
be a barrier to move and hence to adopt another home site is valid.

I think that this should be addressed.

I objected to the sixth open motion (using Qtask as the home site) 
on the 26th of May, and yet my objection has clearly been stonewalled.

I propose an emergency meeting, and given the seriousness of this 
situation, and the alleged 'influence peddling corruption scandal" 
that the meeting NOT be chaired by Mr. Tiffin, nor anyone with direct 
or indirect ties with Qtask.

This proposal is thus motioned.

I also motion that this meeting be conducted behind close doors to 
prevent any leaks to the media.

I'll second the motion for an emergency meeting.

I'll also second the motion that it be held in private

I motion that Peter Wood act as Chairman if willing.

guys, you are starting to act like a politics :-)

I motion that comment be stricken from the record.

who gives a f..., what the site is, right? It can change as many 
times as the group wishes for. I believe btiffin simply wanted to 
get thing started. What would be his intention/motive to use Qtask? 
He is surely not paid by Reichart to bring user.r to qtask. Terry, 
I wonder if you would rise the same objections, if from the very 
beginning the site was based upon Kommonwealth? :-)

This whole thing starts to sound rudiculous, not matter what Robert's 
rules propose ....

if someone will read it outside our group, he/she might think we 
are all ill. The group of what - less than 10 participants, can't 
get things moving in a natural way ...

I wonder if someone actually has a real preference to base our vote 
for the site upon? As for me, I don't, because I don't know, what 
the requirements are going to be ....

I now might understand, why Carl does not like official organisations 
;-)

Order

Sir, your comments are best tabled in the user.r debate group.

OK

Sorry, did not distinguished those two and its roles ...

I second the motion that Pekr's comment be stricken from the record, 
and move that his comments preceding this one likewise be stricken.

If I may represent Petr's main point: that it does not matter what 
web framework the temporary site is based upon, so long as no dependency 
to that framework is created and so long as there are no ulterior 
motives for using that framework.  In my opinion, given the agonies 
that have brought us to this point, it would not have been in Brian's 
or the group's interest to skimp on the selection process in favour 
of a preordained framework.  Dependency, as I've stated before, is 
of greater concern.