[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>:
[...]
> There's absolutely no reason why we can't send out reminders.  It's
> probably a good idea to do so.

Last-minute reminders, yeah, if we have to.

[...]
> > 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!" :)
>
> Not in my opinion, although we didn't specifically discuss this angle.
> My thought is that it's a "members" meeting, so only members should be
> able to win.  Thoughts?

The business stuff is for members, and for non-members who want to at
least speak. (We'd need to check first with members if non-members can
speak, just need unanimous consent.) I like having this sort of
additional check on the membership. After all, getting in early is a
worthwhile goal to promote to everyone, not just members.

Maybe we can give out some extra tickets if we don't have a quorum at
10:30. If we don't have enough members, then non-members get tickets,
up to the quorum number, first come first serve! They can't vote, but
at least they showed up. :)


[...]
> Reports and motions are two different things.  I think something akin to
> the language that Patrick and I are discussing on the subthread is good
> for the motion.  The report can be as detailed as whoever writes it wants
> to be.  If there's confusion, hopefully it will get cleared up in
> discussion prior to the vote.

I agree. The line that you both agreed to will go out to the
membership. Are you going to write a longer report, something more
detailed than the already detailed message that you wrote two weeks
ago that I sent with the meeting announcement?

> The old dues was grandfathered in as a transition measure.  Clarifying it
> in hindsite isn't something I'm interested in doing.  If the new dues
> get approved, personally, I could care less about ambiguities in the
> old dues.  We'll only have to approach that if the membership starts
> getting fussy, or the new dues aren't approved, which is part of the
> reason we're implementing new dues.

Good sense, that. I tend to fuss over this kind of stuff. Thanks for
keeping this clear.

[...]
> As I stated with Patrick: the membership has the right to override
> anything the board does or dissolve the board if it's unhappy with our
> actions.  What would be our point in refusing to make a motion that
> the membership requested us to make?
>
> The purpose of the board is to handle the day-to-day management of WPLUG,
> not decide what is best for WPLUG.

More good sense, that...

> > 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.
>
> I don't foresee nearly as many problems with this as you do.  I guess
> tomorrow will be an interesting litmus test.

Well, it's like I said. It's better to make things clear and adjust it
if it isn't clear. Even if we live just on precedent, I'd feel much
better if we codified the precedent. It's one of our duties as the
first Board under the new bylaws.

> > 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?
>
> Yes.  I asked Duncan if he was willing to officially take on the role
> of chair of the Internet committee and have not heard from him.  I'd
> like to have a point of contact for that group.

That's something that you guys can take up. I already know to go to
Duncan for the reports, for the most part. Whatever action we take
regarding Patrick's lament about the Internet Committee ought to
resolve the point-of-contact question, among other things.

> I don't disagree with your desire for clarity.  I like to think that
> we're getting better.

Don't get me wrong, I think we are, too. It's just that these problems
are happening right now, and it's hard sometimes to see beyond the
present moment. The only "backsliding" I see is our overlooking the
simpler, less demanding officer and committee reports. But we'll be
taking care of all that. I'm making sure that we do.

-- 
David Ostroske <eksortso at gmail.com>