-
MattJ
has left
-
Lance
has left
-
Lance
has joined
-
Kev
has left
-
Lance
has left
-
Lance
has joined
-
Lance
has left
-
Lance
has left
-
Lance
has joined
-
Lance
has left
-
Lance
has joined
-
Lance_
has joined
-
Lance_
has left
-
Lance_
has joined
-
Lance
has left
-
Lance_
has left
-
Lance
has joined
-
Alex
has joined
-
Alex
has left
-
Lance
has left
-
Lloyd
has joined
-
Lloyd
has left
-
Lloyd
has joined
-
Zash
has joined
-
Alex
has left
-
ralphm
has left
-
ralphm
has left
-
ralphm
has left
-
stpeter
has joined
-
Lloyd
has joined
-
Lance
has joined
-
stpeter
has left
-
stpeter
has joined
-
stpeter
has left
-
stpeter
has joined
-
stpeter
has left
-
stpeter
has joined
-
Lance
has joined
-
stpeter
has left
-
Lance
has joined
-
stpeter
has joined
-
ralphm
has left
-
Alex
has joined
-
Kev
has left
-
Lance
has left
-
Lance
has joined
-
Zash
has left
-
Alex
has left
-
Alex
has joined
-
Kev
has left
-
Zash
has joined
-
stpeter
has left
-
Zash
Is it not common for bylaws to require qualified majority on multiple consequitive meetings for changing (parts of) the bylaws?
-
Lance
has joined
-
Lance
has joined
-
Jef
has joined
-
Alex
has left
-
jabberjocke
has left
-
Lance
has joined
-
Lance
has joined
-
Jef
has left
-
Jef
has joined
-
Jef
has left