[wplug-board] Tomorrow's meeting agenda

[David Ostroske]

On 8/4/06, Bill Moran <wmoran at potentialtech.com> wrote:
> In response to "David Ostroske" <eksortso at gmail.com>:
[...]
> > * Patrick, have we got the swag in yet? If not, can we get an
> > effective substitute for the raffle?
>
> [Please have the swag, please, please, please ... anything else will
>  be sub-optimal.]

We might want to start printing fancy color pictures and winners'
redemption cards. Just in case...

> > * If we're having a raffle, how do we reward the members who show up
> > early? Give a free ticket to each member who shows up before 10:30am,
> > regardless of when the meeting actually starts?
>
> As Chair, I can say that the meeting _will_ start at 10:30 sharp.  If we
> don't have a quorum, we'll take the appropriate RONR actions.

I like that. 10:30, sharp!

Since we've been awfully quiet about this meeting on the lists, we may
have to rely on quorum calls to bring people in. Beauty, if we don't
have to. Feck all, if we do have to.

> As far as who is eligible for the swag, the point was to get people to
> show up for the meeting on time.  My opinion is that anyone who signs in
> prior to 10:30 is in the raffle.  Anyone who shows up after that is late
> and not in the raffle.
>
> Personally, I want to encourage responsible behaviour.  Showing up a little
> late is no big deal ... it just means you're not in the raffle.

Well, to that end, it's safe for me to just say that anyone who shows
up in time for the meeting will be entered into the raffle, and nobody
else will be eligible. I'd thought that we'd be selling tickets to
other people who wanted in on the raffle. I really ought to stress
that "all you gotta do is show up."

Does this imply that non-members also won't be eligible? Or will we
give tickets to absolutely everyone who shows up early? I'm inclined
towards the latter notion, actually. We'd be in a position to say,
"Cope, okay? Lucky Bob's not a member, but at least he showed up!" :)

> If the goal were to punish irresponsible behaviour, we could do something
> like lock the door from 10:30 - 11:30 and anyone who shows up late can't
> attend.  Hopefully it won't ever come to punishment.

It should never come to that. We don't want to get in the habit of
driving people away, for any reason that wouldn't involve the
Investigating Committee.

> > * What precisely is our recommendation that the members will be voting
> > on? Is it just setting dues at $10? Or will the vote be on both that
> > and dropping the pizza coupon? My thought is, it's only the dues
> > amount, but the coupon thing is immediately tied to that.
>
> Technically, the dues to this point have been, "$5 per year, and you're
> guaranteed a coupon for 1 free pizza".  The new dues are "$10 per year"
> While we probably need to verbally clarify that this no longer includes
> pizza, I don't see that it needs to be official wording.  Thoughts?

Since we're bound by the bylaws on this matter, we MUST have official
wording. We can't be fuzzy about this. Thing is, at the last Board
meeting, we got a decent recommendation together, but didn't describe
it in firm language. I'm partly to blame for that. I knew that the $10
amount had to be approved, but it wasn't until later that I realized
that the status of the pizza coupon wasn't clear. Was it part of the
dues, something which the Board can't change without recommending an
alternative to the membership, or just something the Board
unilaterally offered new members? And for that matter, do we give out
free pizza every time somebody renews their membership?

So. The old $5 dues amount, and the pizza coupon policy, was set by
the previous Board. Beth, you posted this page (linked below) on the
website last year, so you and Mark Dalrymple probably know better than
any of us how the pizza coupon works. Is it part of the dues policy,
or something else?
http://www.wplug.org/membership/dues

No matter how it goes, I think more clarity is better than less. We'd
face a firestorm if it wasn't made explicitly clear that the pizza
coupons would be going away. I want to be upfront about it.

I could say this:
"According to our bylaws, the Board recommends the dues, and the
membership votes on whether or not to approve the recommendation. This
is our main business for the meeting.

"Our current dues are $5 per year. Also, new members get a coupon for
free pizza for 1 meeting. The Board recommends setting the dues at $10
per year, without the pizza coupon."

If the pizza coupon isn't part of the dues, the second paragraph would
just read:
"Our current dues are $5 per year. The Board recommends setting the
dues at $10 per year."

However, if we did this, we absolutely must mention in our report that
we're scrapping the pizza coupons.

[...]
> I looked this over.  While there are some interesting parliamentary twists
> and turns, I don't see any of them being a big deal or ambiguous.  Here are
> some possible scenarios and their resolution.
[...]
> 3) Membership rejects and has a "counter proposal" (let's say the
>    membership thinks the dues should be $20).  Since the membership is
>    ultimately in control, they simply vote down our original proposal,
>    then move that the board must recommend the dues be set to $20.
>    Assuming this passes the vote, the board must abide.  At that point
>    the board has a new proposal that the dues be set at $20, and the
>    membership will approve that (if they don't, then something is
>    really weird).

Woah. The Board instantly recommends $20, because the membership can
put it in our laps like that? If that's the case, what's the Board
for?

The "recommendation and approval of dues " part of the bylaws
seriously needs to be revised. In preparation for the annual meeting,
we should put together all of the bylaws changes that we'd need
members to vote upon, and bring them up in September as part of the
nominations meeting. That way, we could handle Board elections and
bylaws changes with the same absentee ballot mailing.

> > Bottom line: I can't write the agenda yet. Please give me the extra
> > information so that I can!
>
> What else do you need?

Just those points I was asking about.

> > P.S. Beth, can you report for the Program Committee? And Chris, we
> > don't need an ErieLUG Revival report for the membership, but it would
> > be nice to have one. Are you up for that?
>
> Have you heard from anyone on the Internet Committee?

Yes, Duncan said that the secondary server has been put up, and that
it's not currently offering any services. Have you got more, Bill?


It took me an hour to reply to this message, mostly because of the
vagueness that we've all had to muddle through. I gotta get this off
my shoulders... We've got to be crystal clear in the future, at least
make clarity a priority when we do business. Otherwise we're in for a
heap of trouble. Fuzziness leads to confusion, which leads to bad
policy, bad action, and the inevitable violation of people's rights.
Tell me of an era when this hasn't been so.

-- 
David Ostroske <eksortso at gmail.com>