|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 118 of 299:
| 
Aug 28 13:34 UTC 2002 |
Re #115: I'm opposed to the idea. Arguments become much more intractable
and nasty online than in any other medium. It's just not a healthy way to
have a serious discussion.
If I had a dollar for every nasty, hours-long argument I've had with someone
online that was sorted out in ten minutes with a phone call...
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 119 of 299:
|
Aug 28 13:41 UTC 2002 |
Thank you. Finally less insults and more discussion.
Just for clafification for those who may be scrolling through. Why
don't people establish what the main questions are that they wish to
have answered (someone can compile them in one post), or the main body
of issues that the group as a whole are trying to get through.
|
other
|
|
response 120 of 299:
|
Aug 28 14:04 UTC 2002 |
Hmm. In meatspace, we have the gavel to bang in the event of intractable
arguing. In a party environment, the noisetab could be disallowed except
for a gavel bang noise permitted to the chair (and the /me noise for
all).
I agree that to some extent communicating fully via text only would be
more of a challenge, but I do not thinnk that the tendency of people to
be less focused and more argumentative online than in person necessarily
means that this will be the case in a board meeting. Keep in mind, we
still have the :ignore command, in case observers attempt to be
disruptive, and the board members have significant motivation to miantain
proper decorum in the meeting. Some of the most vigorous arguments in
board meetings I've attended have been (primarily) between myself and
steve and aruba, and I don't think that conducting them online would have
made them any worse or more difficult.
Again, all I am suggesting is an experiment. Trying this, regardless of
misgivings, would be a significant step in the direction of developing a
prtactical solution to this issue. If if doesn't work, then that is also
useful information which will better focus future discussions on the
topic.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 121 of 299:
|
Aug 28 14:15 UTC 2002 |
And at least this particular experiment could take place with current
members, rather than waiting for a remote member to be elected before
trying it out.
|
other
|
|
response 122 of 299:
|
Aug 28 14:23 UTC 2002 |
True, but that is a shortcoming of the idea rather than an advantage, for
practical purposes...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 123 of 299:
|
Aug 28 15:52 UTC 2002 |
Re #108: what is the relevance of this? Grex is not incorporated as a
cooperative.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 124 of 299:
|
Aug 28 15:55 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 125 of 299:
|
Aug 28 17:56 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 126 of 299:
|
Aug 28 18:41 UTC 2002 |
re #106: Hahahaha! You don't know your M-Net history. I have attended
Arbornet Board meetings lasting over 3 hours.
Arbornet has tried on-line meetings via party, and they didn't work
well. I didn't participate, but as I understand it, there were
intrusive users making discussion hard, there were problems with
getting everyone connected at once, and it just generally didn't work
well. That's not to say it wouldn't work fine for Grex.
I am in favor of resolving this, somehow, now that it's been raised and
discussed as much as it has. I'd like the goal to be to find a
reasonable policy to integrate remote Board members into Grex
operations, and I'd like to see it happen by the next Board meeting.
|
jep
|
|
response 127 of 299:
|
Aug 28 18:42 UTC 2002 |
Erp! I mean by the next election.
|
jp2
|
|
response 128 of 299:
|
Aug 28 18:55 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 129 of 299:
|
Aug 28 19:02 UTC 2002 |
Keep in mind the time of year, John. May not happen that quickly.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 130 of 299:
|
Aug 28 19:14 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
randyc
|
|
response 131 of 299:
|
Aug 28 19:16 UTC 2002 |
Too close to Christman, silly!
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 132 of 299:
|
Aug 28 19:22 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 133 of 299:
|
Aug 28 19:25 UTC 2002 |
It's August. The next election is in December or January, isn't it?
I realize it may not be a lot of time for making a policy change. I
also note I have no standing, other than as a member, and shouldn't be
conveying the impression I am making demands to which I hold the
membership responsible for acting. I just stated what I think is a
reasonable goal. I wanted to answer Colleen's comment that no policy
change is needed. I think it *is* needed.
|
mary
|
|
response 134 of 299:
|
Aug 28 19:28 UTC 2002 |
I'd be happy to try a !party board meeting. I'd like to see
how it goes and even if it's a spectacular failure, we'll have
learned something.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 135 of 299:
|
Aug 28 19:30 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 136 of 299:
|
Aug 28 20:21 UTC 2002 |
I have never been involved with a board meeting that used teleconferencing
for more than one physically absent board meetings, but even one had
limitations, such as not being able to "recognize" that absent board
member when he wished to speak. Having all or a majority having to butt
in to be recognized sounds chaotic. The same is true in a party format.
A person cannot ask to be recognized and then have their full say, with
others paying attention to just that one person (unless it is agreed
upon beforehand and some way to be recognized in turn is used).
This is not to say that it is necessarily chaotic, but I think it would
require more structure than is usually the case. One way is for the
chair to call upon each board member, in turn, to speak once to an issue.
I used this more formal process only a couple of times, but it is amazingly
effective for otherwise very difficult questions (my organization bought
a headquarters building this way).
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 137 of 299:
|
Aug 28 20:24 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 138 of 299:
|
Aug 28 20:35 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 139 of 299:
|
Aug 28 20:37 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 140 of 299:
|
Aug 28 21:06 UTC 2002 |
party automatically announces who the speaker is with each line entered.
I agree that some ground rules would have to be set, but I don't think
they'd have to be extensive, so long as they were agreed to by all
attendees.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 141 of 299:
|
Aug 29 00:44 UTC 2002 |
The (small) point that I was making is that when everyone is physically
present the chair can pick a raised hand and call on that person. In
party or over the phone there could be a simultaneious clamour of
members announcing themselves and therefore harder for the chair to
pick one. I agree that everyone should identify themselves over the
phone, but that's a different problem.
|
jep
|
|
response 142 of 299:
|
Aug 29 01:33 UTC 2002 |
I think we should draw a distinction between remote Board members
calling in via conference call, and an on-line Board meeting conducted
via party. I wouldn't want the failure of one of these ideas to
automatically lead to dismissal of the other.
|
