|
|
| Author |
Message |
eeyore
|
|
April BoD Agenda
| 
Apr 11 19:49 UTC 2001 |
Well, here it is, time for another BoD meeting. Since I've not heard anything
from Eric, I'm guessing that April 18th is still okay. And here, once again,
is the basic BoD agenda.
1. Gavel Banging
2. Chair Report
3. Treasurer's Report
4. Publicity Committee
5. Tech Committee
6. New Business
7. Scheduale next Meeting
8. Go the Hell Home
Anybody got issues with this?
|
| 17 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 1 of 17:
|
Apr 11 21:57 UTC 2001 |
Er, oops. I thought I had replied. 18th is fine.
|
carson
|
|
response 2 of 17:
|
Apr 11 23:48 UTC 2001 |
(I don't know. Hell's kinda out of the way. could I just go home after
the meeting?)
|
swa
|
|
response 3 of 17:
|
Apr 12 01:52 UTC 2001 |
Megan, I love your attitude... ;)
|
i
|
|
response 4 of 17:
|
Apr 12 03:40 UTC 2001 |
Given the lack of anything resembling a mandate from the users here in
coop, i'd like the Board to pick who'll be the coop fw(s). Would you
like me to get you a "willing to serve" list, or ???
|
spooked
|
|
response 5 of 17:
|
Apr 12 05:47 UTC 2001 |
unds good to me, mate.
|
spooked
|
|
response 6 of 17:
|
Apr 12 06:43 UTC 2001 |
Albeit, sounds even better.
|
scg
|
|
response 7 of 17:
|
Apr 12 07:00 UTC 2001 |
(schedule)
|
mary
|
|
response 8 of 17:
|
Apr 12 10:42 UTC 2001 |
Would the Board like to make a decision on the fairwitness-ship
of Co-op?
|
spooked
|
|
response 9 of 17:
|
Apr 12 11:07 UTC 2001 |
A board is for making decisions.....
|
aruba
|
|
response 10 of 17:
|
Apr 12 14:54 UTC 2001 |
Re #7: I don't know, "scheduale" implies there will be a certain amount of
festivity involved. I'm for that. :)
|
other
|
|
response 11 of 17:
|
Apr 12 19:20 UTC 2001 |
re: 8
Sure. Put it on the agenda. Who'll bring the hat?
|
swa
|
|
response 12 of 17:
|
Apr 14 02:18 UTC 2001 |
Re 4,8: I know we've discussed this in the other item, but since the
response here is still fairly ambiguous: I think that the board should
*not* decree that coop ought to have a certain number of fairwitnesses,
either one or two (hell, I personally still think it's a bit silly that
it's going to the board at all, but that's neither there nor there), but
should, after drawing a name from a hat or whatever, find out if that
person *wants* to work alone or with someone else, and take it from there.
|
mary
|
|
response 13 of 17:
|
Apr 14 13:02 UTC 2001 |
I agree that the number of Co-op fairwitnesses shouldn't be
hard-coded into Grex law but rather be left flexible, to best
meet the needs of the conference and the available candidates.
|
davel
|
|
response 14 of 17:
|
Apr 15 18:17 UTC 2001 |
Agreed. It may be good for the board to decide to appoint some particular
number this time around, without even suggesting that this is a policy.
|
flem
|
|
response 15 of 17:
|
Apr 16 15:14 UTC 2001 |
re #9 -- It is? Hmm...
|
mooncat
|
|
response 16 of 17:
|
Apr 17 15:18 UTC 2001 |
(see Greg, that's what's been going wrong... ;) )
|
russ
|
|
response 17 of 17:
|
Dec 17 22:23 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
