VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6] ]
Subject: Cambridge bid for IVDA


Author:
Tim
 		[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 18:03:39 05/20/03 Tue
In reply to: Tim 's message, "Re: Did I miss something?" on 17:00:46 05/20/03 Tue
 Cambridge have officially entered the race to host IVDA.




>There was a brief discussion on it before, stemming
>from the fact that at the moment anyone who pays £21
>and has a constitution stating that it supports
>ballroom dancing at university could become a general
>member of the IVDA. They need not be a student, and
>need not have any members. This leads to clear
>potential for abuse. I suggested that the society
>needed to be affiliated to the university, which would
>apparently cause problems for some clubs. So it was
>amended simply to require a vote for new members. This
>would be a trivial procedure in most cases, and I
>can't see any legitimate university club being
>refused, but it was just the simplest way to make the
>amendment.
>
>
>>Sorry, why do people need approval? What possble
>>grounds would we have for refusing people?
>>
>>
>>>OK, I'll second the GCM approval (I've not seen the
>>>amendment but I agree in principle), though there is
>>>no constitutional requirement for amendments to be
>>>seconded.
>>>
>>>Also the clause on spring GCM timing needs to
>amended,
>>>as it has been ignored now for 3 years on the trot!
>>>
>>>Something like: ...shall be within two weeks of IVDC;
>>>weeks which are completely outside the term dates of
>>>any member university shall not be counted in setting
>>>this deadline.
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
Re: Cambridge bid for IVDAkaren18:11:18 05/20/03 Tue

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.