Re: Meeting Rules

["Kris Ames" <kris@cioe.com>]

Yes!  Yes!   Yes!...I just posted a summary of my shaky recollection of
previous votes.

-Kris

----------
From: Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>
To: gmlist@ns1.cioe.com
Subject: Meeting Rules
Date: Tuesday, November 24, 1998 9:36 AM


I'm in agreement with much of BJ's spew. In order to move forward in
the most efficient manner possible we need to have and follow certain
guidelines. The manner in which we arrive at a concensus or proposal
need to follow Roberts rules (that'd be too much fun for Sean) but once
we have something on the track in needs to follow set procedure to:

1) keep people from arguing about what is valid or invalid
2) keep people from arguing about what was or was not agreed upon

These procedures need to be agreeable and documented.

We all agree that a proposal needs to be presented at the meeting
prior to being voted on. We are in disagreement on how much change
or ammending can happen to that proposal before it is no longer
the proposal that was presented. We are also in disagreement about
the form of that presentation. I suggest the following:

1) That presentation is always written and should take the exact form
   of the written proposal that will end up being handed to Dan. Kill
   two birds with one stone. If it passes, hand a copy to Dan and be
   smiley. If it fails, rethink your ideas.

2) No modifications or ammendments that affect the content of the
   proposal may be made after the meeting in which it was presented.
   Modifications and ammendments _may_ be made after its presentation
   but before the end of the meeting giving people time to take notes
   and still have the text available to them between meetings. Spelling
   and grammatical changes are allowed as long as they do not change
   the meaning of the proposal.

   This should not become a barrier or used as leverage (ie "if we
   change that we have to wait another meeting before we can vote it
   in... so lets just go as is"). As someone else pointed out (John?)
   we've done without it for 10 years, another two weeks isn't going
   to make a difference.

3) The proposal will be voted upon at the following meeting unless
   the original presentor, or a majority of those present, decide
   that more discussion or modifications is necessary before a vote
   should take place.

We are in disagreement about the nature of records and the accurate
publication of results. At the beginning of every meeting someone
should be appointed to take notes and to summarize those notes for
posting to this list. This summarization and posting to happen by
Monday evening following the meeting. Then we can argue about if
what they published is correct or not. Much fun. But at least it'll
still be fresh in our minds.

We need a list of proposals that are on the table and what state
they are in (ie: proposal, ratified proposal, Dan approved). As
well as the timelines on these things. Ideally we just get Dan to
sign the written copy we give him and hand it back. Good 'nuff. A
posting to this list would also be good (gotta have a record).
I'd be happy to maintain such a list and will post what I believe
it is later today (and setup an address where you can send an
e-mail and get the list emailed back to you).

Lemme know if this all makes sense to you guys.

						-Steve