I do not believe that we are trying to suppress your views, or anyone else's views on this list. Everyone has their right to give their opinion as long as it is done in a tasteful way, (so far it is.) In fact the board would like to hear everyones opinion on this matter.
I believe what the Email was trying to say is that ultimately the "Board" will be the ones who will be footed with the responsibility of handling the meetings and making things run smoothly. Also getting addition space for a second meeting area must be done under the board. It is the board who must decide if things are feasible and if they are in the best interest of the group with an objective view. The CLUG Executives are trying to look out for CLUGs best interests. The board is not try to hold back ideas but is cautious of downfalls of each idea presented. Jarrod as well as the rest of the Execs are doing the best they can and are trying to decide what is best for the group. Such topics as what everyone wants is a very subjective, and having one opinion enforced by a few others is not the majority of the group. We need to visit the other side of the coin. Please understand that the board does value your opinions greatly. Especially contributing members who want to try to improve CLUG. We are not trying to run a dictatorship. We are simply are trying to process what the group wants as a whole and putting that decision into motion. IMHO not everyone in the "GROUP" has voiced their opinion. Once again the board is looking out for everyones best interest. I would like to point out that just over a year ago it was decided as a group, (during a meeting,) that members wanted more presentations, (I believe Marcel, CLUG VP, polled the members.) Thus two types of presentations were decided. The short mini-topics that would fit 2 - 3 into a meeting and a more in depth presentation that would take a whole meeting. This was something the board put in to action. Also note that in the last meeting such a decision was not made clear in one way or the other. Which is why the board is cautious. IMHO I feel the board is doing a good job and thunder should not be taken from the board. These are my thoughts only and may not reflect the opinions of the rest of the board. On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:33:49 -0600, Aaron Seigo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On November 5, 2004 13:41, Jarrod Major wrote: > > > is it time to put the monolithic presentation to bed, excepting > > > exceptional circumstances where we get Big Names in or what-have-you, and > > > instead design around a more fluid, socially-driven style? > > > > Thank you for your zeal in this matter Aaron. The Executive will decide > > what is put to bed and when. > > then i fear you may have begun to forget the purpose of the Executive. > > > I have already stated that we are discussing > > this. We have heard your comments and we are in deliberations over them and > > all the comments that other people have made. > > i reserve my right, and that of others, to continue to discuss these and other > CLUG related issues. is it creating too much off-topic noise on the list? are > people's feelings getting hurt here? i don't see the rational for what > appears to be an attempt at censorship. > > > This kind of statement is > > counter-productive and quashes anyone else out there who may think that big > > presentations are a good idea. > > how is an open question to the list quashing anything? a question is an > opportunity, indeed an INVITATION, for replies, answers and further dialogue. > > even though i didn't originally propose such a free form, socially-driven > approach, as others have offered their viewpoints it has become apparent to > me that this is an approach that at least some would like to see. that was > the whole point of putting this topic "out there": to get dialogue going to > find something that works for THE GROUP. not the Executive. not me. the > GROUP. > > i do not consider this to be an Executive matter at all, actually. this is a > matter for the group. the board's role is, IMHO, to further dialogue, gather > the results of that dialogue, attempt to measure what the general consensus > is based on that dialogue and then execute that consensus. > > this does not mean getting everyone to agree, but it does mean having a lot of > dialogue. this is how Free communities work. > > > We have not heard from the majority of this > > group so your comment is a little premature. > > it was a question. not a comment. > > > We will make the call for volunteers for whatever we feel we need. At this > > point it is still very much part of the Board's responsibilities to plan > > and execute meetings. > > i hope this reads differently than you meant it. > > this is not the Board's group, this is the membership's group. the Board is > there to do the admittedly boring gruntwork to facilitate meeting the needs > of the group. at least, that was the intent when we set up the Executive > Board, and we took great pains to ensure that spirit was put into practice. > > > I apologize if this sounds terse, I'm just getting a bad vibe on this... > > care to explain? it seems everything thus far has been agreeable, upbeat and > inventive? it seems people are discussing things and sharing their honest > opinions. what part has given you a bad vibe, exactly? > > > > -- > Aaron J. Seigo > Society is Geometric > > > _______________________________________________ > clug-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca > Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) > **Please remove these lines when replying > > > _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
