Open 20:10
Close 20:47
Author Stephanie Piper
Signed Karl Richardson
Tally 33

  • Karl Richardson
  • Sven Hanzka
  • Timeka Beecham
  • Robert Smith
  • Joshua Hodgendorn
  • Stephanie Piper
  • Jason Beattie
  • Luke Hovington
  • Brendon Halliday
  • Alexander Wixted
  • Mike Ando
  • Brendan Carmichael
  • Beau Sandford
  • Scott Wilson
  • Phil Gowenlock
  • David Thomson
  • Ian De Dominicis
  • Alan Blake
  • Simeon Higgs
  • Daniel Zimmer
  • David Bussenschutt
  • Colin Houtham
  • Matthew Gundry
  • David Morgan
  • Phil Gowenlock
  • Will Stobo
  • Scott Wilson
  • Lysa Singh
  • Jim Borman
  • Adam Blake
  • James Churchill
  • Aaron Bycroft
  • Niklas Castril

  • Treasurer's Report
  • Legal Waiver Update
  • Lease Update
  • Moving out of RCMS area Update
  • Karl's Router Purchase Proposal
  • Adam's Thicknesser Purchase Proposal
  • Consumables Purchase Proposal
  • Sighthound Video Security Pro License Purchase Proposal
  • Quorum discussion

  • Treasurer's Report: $25k in bank, slow increase in funds. $500 extra income after expenses monthly.
  • Legal Waiver Update: Currently looking into streamlining machine induction process with a legal waiver integration into induction forms. This would make sure that HSBNE is not liable for any injuries caused.
  • Lease Update: Still in early stages of discussing draft lease and proposing changes with the landlord. HSBNE members need to make sure that proper lockup procedures are followed as in future, we will be in breach of the lease for any security negligence.
  • Moving out of RCMS area: The boneyard and Chemlab needs to be shifted before the 1st of Dec. Helpers on Tuesday open nights are appreciated.
  • Karl's Router Purchase Proposal ($1500): Unanimous Y, 1 Abstaining.
  • Adam's Thicknesser Purchase Proposal ($465): Unanimous Y
  • Consumables Purchase Proposal (Initial $300 for consumables, then $100/month hence forth, with no fund roll over): Unanimous Y, 1 N
  • Sighthound Video Security Pro License Purchase Proposal ($400): Unanimous Y.
  • Quorum discussion: Choice has been narrowed down to three options:

Option 1 (Adam) The “All voters now and in future” Model: Quorum being defined as 75% of the average of members who have attended the last four meetings. This solution is flexible to a -25% attendance fluctuation before quorum is not achieved. Pros: Simple solution, all full members can vote. This solution is adaptive to continuous growth. Cons: Monitoring. This can be rectified through the RFID Meeting swipe point @Nog is building. This solution is vulnerable to a continuous attendance decrease model as pointed out by David Thomson and Buzz. The high attendance percentage required is also vulnerable to not achieving quorum as per attendance trends over the past five months (See graph below).

Option 2 (Buzz) The “Classic Adjusted” Model: Quorum is defined as 20% of the current membership, plus the executive. Pros: Simple solution, all full members can vote. Cons: This model may not be as adaptive to continuous growth. If membership is to increase, likely we will need to decrease this percentage again and rectify the constitution. Caxton’s legal advice advised against this method for this reason.

Option 3 (Alex): all members have the right to vote, at any general meeting. Quorum is defined as 25% of the mean number of members who have attended the last four meetings, plus the number of executive multiplied by two. This solution is flexible to ~50% attendance fluctuation decrease and still make quorum. Edit (to adjust for the issue devians pointed out below): If membership falls beneath this threshhold (mathematically defined as 14 people) quorum is 50% of total membership and votes require a simple majority of total membership. Pros: Since interested and informed members are the most likely to attend, quorum fluctuates with member participation. This solution is adaptive to continuous growth. Importantly, it does not create a voting divide in the membership. It does not exclude anyone if they feel a certain agenda topic is important, preventing misuse of general meeting votes via time-based exclusion. (example - no-one from createatorium attends for 4 meetings. agenda item is remove createatorium as a cause. createatorium members are able to vote under this modification, not the original version)

Nog motions to transition meeting vote to an online poll to narrow down the options for voting on a final option next week. Motion seconded by Steph.

  • meetings/general/2015/20151117
  • Last modified: 7 months ago
  • (external edit)