|
Grex > Coop7 > #118: Agenda for the 10/25/95 Grex Board of Directors Meeting | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 23 new of 47 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 25 of 47:
| 
Oct 27 11:06 UTC 1995 |
That's correct.
|
ajax
|
|
response 26 of 47:
|
Oct 27 17:23 UTC 1995 |
I'd have to agree with John regarding policy issues. One that came up
was retiring accounts of deceased users. It's been discussed in co-op,
but nobody requested it be put on the agenda - instead it was brought
up under "new business," and was headed toward a motion. As John pointed
out, people who are interested in the issue would probably like to know
it would be discussed, as they might choose to show up and participate.
I don't see this as a big deal, it's a reasonable suggestion that
people ought to put more issues they plan to raise in the agenda item,
as time and memory permit. Simple enough!
|
davel
|
|
response 27 of 47:
|
Oct 27 21:53 UTC 1995 |
Um, some people had asked, in the agenda item, why it wasn't on the agenda.
I personally said that it was there: new business. IMO something that has
been discussed extensively in coop is *perfectly* appropriate to bring up
at the next board meeting as new business.
I recognize John's concerns that there might be people who would have attended
if they'd thought a topic was to be discussed, but given the thread in the
board agenda item (this item) that doesn't seem to apply in this case. And
where it does apply, that should not prevent new business from being raised
& discussed - it should move the board members to discuss the issue (assuming
they think it worth discussion), postpone a decision, and announce that state
of affairs to allow other points of view to be raised.
We're not talking about something's being raised out of the blue and disposed
of before anyone who disagrees has a chance to protest; we're talking about
something which had been beat into the ground in coop, and which several
people had said here should be discussed. The former type of thing is
an all-too-common abuse of parliamentary procedure, but I can't see that
it's at issue here in the least.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 28 of 47:
|
Oct 27 23:05 UTC 1995 |
davel, I understand where you are coming from, I believe. I do think that
there are differences between a request for X dollars to replace a
needed modem cable, and items that have strong emotional or political
overtones, and especially those that have been subject to such controversy.
ajax, remmers, and srw have the right idea here, I believe. A basic principle
to consider in conducting the affairs of the board: "Notice, Notice, Notice,
you cannot give too much Notice!". Now that should be a jingle. :) <adbarr
secretly transmits RRO into the depths of Grex.> You can provide different
levels of notice depending on the nature of the problem.
|
steve
|
|
response 29 of 47:
|
Oct 27 23:40 UTC 1995 |
Would anyone like to buy a coop response, for cheap?
I'm sorry John. I completely misread what you were
saying. *sigh*
I sit corrected, with small fragments of a viscous yellow
and white substance running down my head.
|
ajax
|
|
response 30 of 47:
|
Oct 28 09:05 UTC 1995 |
Dave, I hadn't remembered that login-retirement was specifically
mentioned in this Agenda item prior to the meeting. If it hadn't been,
I still think it was reasonable to request that it be mentioned here
first. Since it was, I agree with you in this case. Though we probably
differ in opinions on the general princple.
|
danr
|
|
response 31 of 47:
|
Oct 28 12:47 UTC 1995 |
As I read the responses in this item, both Debra Scully and selena
asked the board to discuss this issue. It may have been more
appropriate to put it on the agenda as a separate item, but I also
think that bringing it up as new business was also appropriate.
Bringing it up does not mean that we have to make any decisions. Indeed,
when we've addressed issues like this in the past, we have usually said
they needed more discussion in coop and then put the issue on the back
burner.
|
remmers
|
|
response 32 of 47:
|
Oct 28 13:06 UTC 1995 |
Right. I think the action taken was appropriate--it was brought
up and then tabled. I objected when it appeared to be headed for
a vote right then and there.
|
tsty
|
|
response 33 of 47:
|
Oct 28 20:12 UTC 1995 |
yeh - thankx to remmers for the observation and comment. Agreed that the
situation was not a +biggie+ and also at thje same time, the ease with
which slight slips and slides occur in the "bureacuracy" <please note the
quote marks> regarding decision making need to be recognized. thankxx remmers.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 34 of 47:
|
Nov 1 08:20 UTC 1995 |
An agenda usually consists of reports, with recommendations for
action; handling of business required or postponed from a prior
meeting; and then new business, where those recommendations from
the reports are addressed. A useful forth component is a discussion
period, called a "committee of the whole", during which the board
discusses any topics proposed in the motion to go in the "committee",
but during which only "committee of the whole" actions are possible -
not board actions. If this is done just before "new business", the
topics and motions formulated while in "committee of the whole"
can be addressed. [Incidentally, the *vice chair* usually conducts
the "committee of the whole", letting the board chair participate
more personally.]
|
tsty
|
|
response 35 of 47:
|
Nov 2 07:42 UTC 1995 |
really? do i have to re-read Roberts'?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 36 of 47:
|
Nov 2 20:01 UTC 1995 |
[Yup :). It is actually better to form a *quasi* committee of the whole,
which does not have to leave the room, like a regular committee of the
whole - a nice touch.]
|
lilmo
|
|
response 37 of 47:
|
Nov 3 03:22 UTC 1995 |
Re #29: "viscous yellow and white substance" ?? eh?
Re #34-36: Ack.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 38 of 47:
|
Nov 3 07:13 UTC 1995 |
Think of it as a game - like unix. It has its rules, which make things
work better, and many find skilled use to be very pleasurable. And anyone
can learn it (more easily than learning unix! - its in English).
|
lilmo
|
|
response 39 of 47:
|
Nov 5 01:46 UTC 1995 |
Or, think of it like something else that is also a short word ending in 'x':
It has its rules, which make things work, many find skilled use to be very
pleasurable, and almost anyone can learn it (MUCH more easily than unix: no
english AT ALL required!).
|
mdw
|
|
response 40 of 47:
|
Nov 5 11:20 UTC 1995 |
A pox on you I say, six sioux couldn't coax the vexing answer from my
larynx. A box, but not square, made of wax, but only in effigy, a
convex orb of simple complexity which sometimes transfixes me in an
influx of wonder. Like a phoenix, the response indexed by #29 taxes my
cortex.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 41 of 47:
|
Nov 5 11:46 UTC 1995 |
Nice work lilmo, you poked a button on mdw that is seldom used. :) <chuckle>
|
lilmo
|
|
response 42 of 47:
|
Nov 5 20:47 UTC 1995 |
Thanx, I thinx.
|
tsty
|
|
response 43 of 47:
|
Nov 8 14:04 UTC 1995 |
You'zz welcome, I'm zure. <<nice, mdw>>
|
lilmo
|
|
response 44 of 47:
|
Nov 9 02:02 UTC 1995 |
Shouldn't that be "nize"? :-)
|
tsty
|
|
response 45 of 47:
|
Nov 20 08:01 UTC 1995 |
errp! ummm, ...... yeh (oops).
|
lilmo
|
|
response 46 of 47:
|
Nov 27 04:27 UTC 1995 |
isn't it odd that the agenda item for the oct board m3tg is still somewhat
active a month later? :-)
|
srw
|
|
response 47 of 47:
|
Nov 30 02:54 UTC 1995 |
Drift at work.
|