Proposal #6 (but actually needs to be Proposal #1):

Allow any league member that has played at least three Wednesdays during the season to vote at mid-season captains' meetings.
Voting at pre-season organizational meetings should be limited to one vote per registered team (where registration requires a deposit).

While some captains don't bother to show up to mid-season meetings and fail to send a representative, other teams are represented by two or three players. I don't think it should be one vote per team. I think it should be one vote per person actually bothered enough to attend a meeting.

NB: Alan/Lenny, I think this should be the first proposal voted on at the meeting. If it passes, it could impact voting for subsequent proposals.

Sorry John I don't agree with this one. It should be one vote per team imho.
This could turn into a block vote for the 20 or so players who go to one of the tournys that tend to be held at a similar time & to alcoholics like me who have been knocking on the door of the pub since 12.55. Nothing against any of those groups, but there's no reason why they should get undue power because they happen to be in Itaewon at that time.
Also the newer/less competitive teams tend to miss the meetings, and these are the teams we need to think of ways of keeping in the league, having even more votes decide on rules that favour stronger teams is not likely to do that.
We do need to find ways to attract captains to the meetings, I dare say that if you are nearer the bottom than the top, 2 points is neither here nor there.

Respectfully, Charlie, I have a lot of problems with that reasoning. As I don't have the time to address each thing, however, I'm going to to do something stupid and address just one—and the least relevant, at that!
You said "...newer/less competitive teams tend to miss the meetings, and these are the teams we need to think of ways of keeping in the league..."

• You conflate 'newer' and 'less competitive' teams. They are not the same.

• Nor is either group most likely to miss meetings. Take a look at the attendance sheets some time.

• As for "think[ing] of ways of keeping [them] in the league," I think this is deeply misguided. Teams that can't be arsed to send a representative for a 1 hour meeting on a Sunday are teams that weaken the league. More is not always better. I say kick 'em out. Make attendance mandatory! [And less bombastically, I think a league with 24 teams that all played each other twice—once home, once away—each season would be ideal.]

And more bombastically, while we're at it, I'd like to see one-season bans given to every player on a teams that fails to show for a game without fair warning!! Let's sift the wheat from the chaff!!

What say ye?

Hey John,
I didn't mean to conflate (good word by the way) newer and less competitive, I know they are different, I should have put 'and'.
They have the same attendance? Really? I'm sceptical about that, but I've never checked it out so maybe you're right. I know that I always seem to see the captains of the top handful of teams.
I would suggest that your idea of 'teams that can't be arsed' is wrong and teams who don't send representatives don't see the value - I'd be happy to punish them harshly, Maybe if a team fails to send a rep, then the captain is suspended for three matches? Saying that it is mandatory doesn't mean anything without a sanction.
Hate it when teams don't show. Who would get suspended though? I think the sanctions should be targeted at the captains - they are the representative of the team, if there's a no show without reason, it's the captain's fault basically. Might be tough to get through a captain's meeting though haha.

I think you could use the polling section of the website to gauge league sentiment instead of giving full voting rights.