Re: Meeting Rules

[Steve Ames <steve>]

> The only reason that I wanted it possible for people to propose a rule or
> a clarification is that the GM meetings are supposed to be discussions,
> not just meetings to vote.  If during a discussion, a GM has a good enough
> idea, he can propose it right then and there, and bring a write up the
> next meeting.  

Definately bring it up. But why do we care if it gets voted on at the
next meeting or two meetings away? What's the hurry?

> Instead of doubling the time required for the First vote.

Who cares? I agree we are there for discussion. Lets discuss.

> This makes is less bureaucratically static, and stupid.  Write ups are
> nice, but should never be required, 

Why not? I don't want to vote on something and then have the actual
proposal that is given to Dan be different that what I voted on. I
don't want the proposal to change on me either. It needs to be static
from proposal to completion. Or it becomes a different proposal.

> since it was never said in the beginning.

Weak argument. We are here to question and, where needed, change.
Certainly this applies to our own rules of behavior even more than
the rules of AQ.

						-Steve