On November 5, 2004 17:08, Jason Louie wrote: > 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.
i fail to see the connection between this sentiment and saying that i'm creating a bad vibe by engaging the topic. > Also getting > addition space for a second meeting area must be done under the board. that we even need a second meeting area is an erroneous conclusion the board has arrived at simply by not communicating that this is a concern. had you done so, it would have been noted that a social event style meeting does not require another room. moreover, in previous times when we've needed space we've asked the group to help us find it. the board is not required or expected to do all the work, and by taking on such a position the board is severely limiting what it can accomplish. > 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. can you do this without engaging in dialog? > The CLUG Executives are trying to look out for CLUGs best interests. i believe this... > The board is not try to hold back ideas but is cautious of downfalls > of each idea presented. except that you aren't communicating what you perceive these downfalls to be. if you communicated, we could all work together. in this particular case, it seems you're concerned about finding multiple rooms when this may not be an issue at all. > 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. AFAIC, the job of the Executives is not to decide what is best for the group when it comes to meeting content and structure. your job is to facilitate the needs of the group. these are different things. > 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. how was i, or anyone else, "enforcing" any particular idea? > We need to visit the other side of the coin. it's hard to visit it when those who claim to have that perspective aren't engaging in open discussion. > IMHO not everyone in the "GROUP" has voiced their opinion. so the solution is to make fewer people voice their opinions? pfft. this is why i phrased my email in the form of a question: i was looking for input from others! getting the group to voice their opinions is not accomplished by shutting down those who are engaged. > I would like to point out that just over a year ago it was decided as ... > whole meeting. This was something the board put in to action. no one is saying this was a failure. some of us are simply asking if and how it could be improved as the group evolves. > 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. the board is being insular, which is not the same as "cautious". > IMHO I feel the board is doing a good job and thunder should not be > taken from the board. sometimes people don't have an agenda up their sleeve, nor do i see what "thunder" the board is concerned about here. -- Aaron J. Seigo Society is Geometric
pgp14d4ryQhAf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
