Re: Meeting Rules

[Flightgod5@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/24/1998 2:32:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
furmansj@expert.cc.purdue.edu writes:

<< 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.  Instead of doubling the time required for the First vote.
 This makes is less bureaucratically static, and stupid.  Write ups are
 nice, but should never be required, since it was never said in the
 beginning.
 
 Jevan
 
 On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Steve Ames wrote:
 
 > 
 > 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
 > 
  >>
Ummm...I think I know what this was about.  I was tremendously hung over at
the past meeting and forgot to bring any copies of the grapple proposal I had
made.  BJ disagreed with this saying it was outside procedure.  I had noticed,
however, that everyone at the meeting with email had perused the document.
Andy was the only one that hadn't, and I informed him of how it worked and he
even thought it was a good system.  If there's that much of a problem over
this technicality, I'll re-submit my proposal at the next GM meeting.  If
there isn't a problem, please tell me so I can clean it up and make ballots
for the upcoming meeting.

Joel