[wplug-plan] Organizational considerations

[Evan DiBiase]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, David Tessitor wrote:

> OK, so we have two people who think that some members should be excluded from the
> decision process about the group's matters; that having organizational meetings
> open to the entire membership is a bad idea; and that a unanimous vote by a
> larger group of members than have ever taken part in these discussions on the
> list is not valid.

Which people are these, exactly? Can you back up your assertion with
quotations?

> Twelve members attended each of the first two meetings and 18 were at the third.
> Each meeting had at least some different members from the others (16 of the last
> were not at the first two), and at each meeting the idea of having the meetings
> and continuing them was agreed to without dissent.  Nobody has sought to exclude
> the list from the discussion process, nor has anybody proposed that the list
> should be excluded at any time in the future.  The list will continue to be a
> valuable part of the discussion and consideration process, and nobody has said
> otherwise.  Still, there are those who have adamantly insisted that the ability
> to participate in real time, real space meetings should be denied to those
> members who wish instead to be involved through such meetings.

I'm not saying that meatspace meetings are a bad idea, I'm pointing out
that you saying, "We are having meetings at such and such a time and at
such a such a place and these meetings are WPLUG meetings," without
talking to -plan first is irresponsible and contradictory to the basic
ideals that you claim to champion.

> It doesn't seem to make any difference how much these matters are pointed out, so
> I don't expect to have anybody change their mind.  But somebody has to answer
> them.

The answer is: let's do this orderly, through the proper channels, so we
can make sure that everyone who needs/wants to be involved in the
decision-making process for holding meetings is involved.

-Evan