|
Grex > Coop11 > #162: GREX April 2000 Board Meeting Proposed Agenda | |
|
| Author |
Message |
other
|
|
GREX April 2000 Board Meeting Proposed Agenda
| 
Mar 24 07:18 UTC 2000 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
GREX BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, April 5, 7:00-9:00 pm
PLACE: Upstairs at Zingerman's Next Door 422 Detroit Street,
Ann Arbor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
AGENDA:
- 03 Gavel Banging - other <10 seconds
- 25 Chairman's Report - other 5 minutes
- 02 Treasurer's Report - flem 10 minutes
- 05 Publicity Committee - mta 5 minutes
- 18 Technical Committee - staff 20 minutes
- 19 Schedule for future meetings - all 15 minutes
- 16 New Business - all ?? minutes
- 01 Gavel Cessation - other 0 minutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
Please use this item to enter proposed changes or additions to this
agenda.
|
| 23 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 1 of 23:
|
Mar 24 07:22 UTC 2000 |
sorry about the weird formatting, but backtalk wouldn't parse a <pre> tag and
still respect the spacing in the picospan output.
|
aruba
|
|
response 2 of 23:
|
Mar 24 14:16 UTC 2000 |
In another item, someone proposed putting a discussion of the status of our
license of Picospan on the agenda. That seems like a good idea to me.
|
other
|
|
response 3 of 23:
|
Mar 24 18:37 UTC 2000 |
ok. agenda, as amended:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
- 03 Gavel Banging - other <10 seconds
- 25 Chairman's Report - other 5 minutes
- 02 Treasurer's Report - flem 10 minutes
- 05 Publicity Committee - mta 5 minutes
- 18 Technical Committee - staff 20 minutes
- 19 Picospan License Status - all 15 minutes
- 16 Schedule for future meetings - all 15 minutes
- 01 New Business - all ?? minutes
- 03 Gavel Cessation - other 0 minutes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
robh
|
|
response 4 of 23:
|
Mar 24 21:07 UTC 2000 |
<robh is tempted to add two more items to see how the numbering
system would accomodate them>
|
mdw
|
|
response 5 of 23:
|
Mar 24 23:20 UTC 2000 |
* 05 Discussion about the end of the universe and all that - robh
?? minutes
|
albaugh
|
|
response 6 of 23:
|
Mar 25 01:16 UTC 2000 |
So we're back to stupid "numbering" of agenda items...
|
mdw
|
|
response 7 of 23:
|
Mar 25 04:31 UTC 2000 |
You're not a mathematician, are you?
|
other
|
|
response 8 of 23:
|
Mar 25 07:48 UTC 2000 |
what's the problem, K? i just thought it would liven up the item a
little at no cost.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 9 of 23:
|
Mar 26 03:28 UTC 2000 |
Yes I can handle math, mdw. I just don't care to encounter puzzles in reading
an agenda. It's just annoying.
|
mdw
|
|
response 10 of 23:
|
Mar 26 03:55 UTC 2000 |
This means you aren't a mathematician. No sin there. However, you do
appear to be out-numbered by the puzzle lovers, and swimming against
tradition to boot.
|
other
|
|
response 11 of 23:
|
Mar 26 20:19 UTC 2000 |
heck, if you're not interested in the puzzle, why even look at the item
numbering. it's not obtrusive...
|
flem
|
|
response 12 of 23:
|
Mar 26 22:33 UTC 2000 |
(I didn't even notice it until someone pointed it out. And I *am* a
mathematician. :)
|
eeyore
|
|
response 13 of 23:
|
Mar 26 22:49 UTC 2000 |
What do all of the numbers stand for?
|
gypsi
|
|
response 14 of 23:
|
Mar 27 06:39 UTC 2000 |
I didn't notice it, either. I just read through the agenda items in order.
(top to bottom)
|
remmers
|
|
response 15 of 23:
|
Mar 27 20:20 UTC 2000 |
(Come to think of it, I never posted the solution to the numbering
scheme I used for a while last year. Only Marcus showed evidence of
having figured it out.
Then I went back to straight 1,2,3... numbering...)
|
hhsrat
|
|
response 16 of 23:
|
Apr 1 02:19 UTC 2000 |
Is our treasurer's report going to include a mention of the status of
our being able to take credit cards? (I don't think that's actually a
run-on sentence, but I'm not sure)
|
flem
|
|
response 17 of 23:
|
Apr 1 05:01 UTC 2000 |
Yup.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 18 of 23:
|
Apr 1 16:50 UTC 2000 |
It's actually a pretty straightforward Subject - Verb - Object sentence. It's
just that the object is the long phrase "to include a mention of the status
of our being able to take credit cards," which it takes a minute to get yr
brain around.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 19 of 23:
|
Apr 1 20:20 UTC 2000 |
Ditto what orinoco said. It's grammatically correct.
|
swa
|
|
response 20 of 23:
|
Apr 6 01:05 UTC 2000 |
Hmm... is "to include a mention of the status of our being able to take
credit cards" really an *object*? I would call it a predicate. To me, an
object following the verb "going" would have to be a noun indicating the
place to which one is going.
So "include a mention" etc. would not be an object of that verb.
(This is not to disagree with orinoco's and gypsi's assertion that it's a
perfectly fine sentence, just to nitpick, perhaps erroneously.)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 21 of 23:
|
Apr 6 01:44 UTC 2000 |
Actually, it occurs to me that I made another mistake on top of the one
Sara mentions: the verb in #16 isn't _really_ "going" -- that would imply
that there was some sort of travelling happening. Rather, the verb is the
phrase "going to include," which is a wacky future tense of the verb "to
include." The object of that verb, then, is "a mention of the status
of our being able to take credit cards."
Sort of a meta-nitpick.
|
spooked
|
|
response 22 of 23:
|
Apr 6 03:04 UTC 2000 |
LOL
|
gypsi
|
|
response 23 of 23:
|
Apr 6 03:47 UTC 2000 |
Yeah...it's very wordy.
|