response 50 of 93:

Oct 1 16:10 UTC 1995

I draw the line when Grex takes me away from my family.

I want to attend a meeting, not eat dinner. I do that beforehand.

response 52 of 93:

Oct 1 18:23 UTC 1995

A major reason for my objection to making a prior dinner meeting
associated with the board meeting, is the same as Steve's. In our home, we
eat dinner together if at all possible (and it is never because of
meetings that it isn't possible - with one exception, I always ate dinner
at home before or after the board meetings at Zingerman's)). Steve (G) - I
made no objection to your eating dinner with anyone you choose, openly. I
just don't think it should be publicly announced as being associated with
the board meeting. Mary's comments are not relevant to my point, as I also
don't mind if non-board-members associate with board members: in fact,
that's a very good thing! Everyone that wants to have dinner together can
have dinner together, just like they go on walks together. Just don't
associate the event with the board meetings. It is not fair to current or
future board members that have many other exigencies in their lives
besides Grex. 

response 54 of 93:

Oct 1 18:42 UTC 1995

I'd trust people to make their own decisions here.  If they want to
eat dinner together before heading off to a Board meeting, how nice.
If they don't have the time or there are other pressures, they just
show for the meeting.  No moral issues involved.  Just dinner
among consenting adults. ;-)

response 56 of 93:

Oct 1 18:52 UTC 1995

Largely. It creates a situation where the attendance or nonattendance of a
board members can be viewed as a measure of their interest in their role
in Grex. It is not only a matter of family considerations, but simply
extending the board meeting "forwards" into a "gray" area of implicitly
planned discussion of issues that will come before the board. You would
see behavior at the board meeting implying that "we already discussed this
earlier". The problem lies in the close proximity of the two events, and
the implied continuity between them. I do participate in organizations
that have board meeting retreats, where everyone eats, meets, (sleeps :>),
together for a day or a weekend. These, however, are scheduled as such by
the board, who discussed and decided to do it. I would, of course, have no
objection to the board discussing holding public dinner meetings just
prior to public board meetings. If a majority of the board chose to
schedule this, I would go along (after having voted against it). 

response 58 of 93:

Oct 1 18:59 UTC 1995

Do you *really* think you'd see Board members showing up implying
an issue had already been pre-discussed?  I'm shocked!  I'm 
also having a little to much fun with this.

Why don't we form a committee to look into these dinners and come 
up with recommendations prior to the Board vote. ;-)

response 60 of 93:

Oct 1 19:09 UTC 1995

I don't think I need board approval to eat dinner.

response 62 of 93:

Oct 1 20:01 UTC 1995

Stop this. This is getting really confusing. I suggest you allow
board members to go to dinner together, but require them to sit
at separate tables, and only converse via the Internet in a Grex
conference. Problem solved. You are welcome.

response 64 of 93:

Oct 1 22:54 UTC 1995

I think the board should all go out to dinner to discuss this.

response 66 of 93:

Oct 2 00:51 UTC 1995

<sigh>
I think I was the first one to object, & I want to make it really clear that
I was trying to be cute, not seriously objecting.
<dave wonders what would have happened if he'd kept his mouth shut>

(Rane, I honestly see no reason the board shouldn't announce a social
event immediately before the board meeting.  I think there's likely to be
some discussion of board business, but it's not likely to have much impact
on the board meeting.  *My* fear is that it will make a whole lot of people
late to the board meeting itself.  If and when we have a board, or some
fragment thereof, given to secret decision-making we can *then* go ahead
& call for an open meetings act.)

Having said that, I think the board needs to go to dinner to discuss whether
or not to go to dinner to discuss all this stuff.  Not being on the board,
*I* will be under no obligation to go, so I'll go home & eat with my family.

response 68 of 93:

Oct 2 03:26 UTC 1995

   Food rules.

response 70 of 93:

Oct 2 06:22 UTC 1995

But tell us, are you *eating*, while reading coop? Is there a difference
between the responses of those eating and those no? And what *do* you
do about crumbs and greasy fingers?

response 72 of 93:

Oct 2 17:46 UTC 1995

        Here's a thought- "bringing it out in the open" by having an official
meal beforehand doesn't sop people from meeting privately ahead
of time. er, stop people. And it shouldn't, just like it shouldn't
be a no-no to meet ahead of what you currently have going, to discus
things privately if you want to. Let scg eat with his family. Let rane
get his way with the point about the "extended meeting" which, will probably
end up occurring if this is put into play. Let people eat what they like- I'm
vegitarian.. if the "board meal" was at a place which didn't do much
vegitarian stuff, and I was on board, I'd feel very slighted.

response 74 of 93:

Oct 3 06:53 UTC 1995

Perhaps I just take a lighter view of dinner beforehand than Rane.
I would also attend dinner if it were voted by the board to make it
part of the meeting, and I, too, would vote against it.

However, if others wanted to eat together first, I wouldn't mind so
much. Nothing they said would go in the minutes, and if anyone so much
as hinted that something had been discussed before the meeting, I would
simply insist that they repeat the conversation for my benefit.
I don't think this is a serious concern at all.

Like, Jan, I was quite happy with ITI. I was very unhappy with using a real
restaurant (we used Washington Street Station, now defunct), because I
don't want to make people feel obligated to order food. I am not so bothered
by less formal places, like Zings, Amer's or the Union. The only problems
there are the noise and (in Amer's case) the smoke.

I can see why Valerie threw stuff at us, but semi-potatoes? 
Were they really necessary?