Steve, Keep it professional. I'm not insulting you, so I demand that you refrain from doing so to me.
Who wrote the rules on the Proposals page is irrelevant. It was consensed upon January 1, 2013. As such, it is policy. As I mentioned, your convoluted system of if-thens did absolutely nothing to change the requirement that proposals are required to be discussed at one meeting, then consensed upon at the following meeting. As someone who has been involved with SYN/HAK since day one, I can tell you this is always how we have done things and that I am certain that this is how the policy works. If you wish to change that requirement, submit a proposal to do so. Otherwise, I am demanding that you follow our policies as written, and will be keeping an eye on things to ensure that you do so. Sincerely, Chris Egeland On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Steve Radonich IV <[email protected]>wrote: > Chris maybe you don't understand english, or whoever wrote these rules > doesn't but they are contradictory. I specifically remember on a number of > occasions where a proposal was brought up on a tuesday/wednesday and > decided on at the next meeting as the rules state: > > * Proposals may be brought up at any time, but must be discussed for at > least one week before any decision is mate. > * Proposals are decided upon at the first meeting that immediately follows > that one week discussion period. > > A week being defined as 7 days, so if we count, Wednesday (1), Thursday > (2), Friday (3), Saturday (4), Sunday (5), Monday (6), and Tuesday (7) May > 20. And the conclusion of the one week discussion would be Tuesday May > 20th. These rules contradict themselves so much that people can pick and > choose which ones to go by. I am well aware of the policies in place, and > if you choose to go forward with that, then this would be an amendment to > reword the proposal, and the original proposal consensed on next week. > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:11:58 -0400 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Proposal to Remove Torrie from SYNHAK > > > This is upsetting to say the least. Steve, you seem to be gungho about > changing policy at SYN/HAK. I respect that. There is definitely some > change needed within SYN/HAK. However, it's very upsetting to see the > person who is unquestionably the most adamant about changing policy utterly > failing to understand our current policies. I find it dangerous to have > someone so unfamiliar with existing policy being so adamant about changing > it. > > We will NOT be consensing on this on Tuesday, May 20, 2014 because this is > a new proposal. The wording and terms of the proposal have materially > changed. It is required by policy that this proposal be discussed at the > next meeting. The earliest this proposal could come to consensus is > Tuesday May 27, 2014. My logic is that on the official Proposals policy > page (which was adopted almost a year and a half ago), it states the > following: > > > - Proposals are discussed for one meeting, and decided upon at the > meeting that immediately follows. > - Proposals may be brought up at any time, but must be discussed for > at least one week before any decision is made. > - During that week, discussion must happen during a regular weekly > meeting. > - Proposals are decided upon at the first meeting that immediately > follows that one week discussion period. > - You need to be at the deciding meeting to block consensus or > otherwise contribute to the decision. > > Your convoluted system of if-thens did not change the fact that proposals > are required to be announced at a meeting and then are eligible to be > consensed upon at the next meeting. As such, I hold that this proposal > must be discussed at next Tuesday's meeting. > > Also, I find this to be an extraordinarily bad faith attempt to remove > someone, given that just yesterday at the meeting she made it known that > she will be out of town for two weeks starting tomorrow. To me, this > sounds like "Hey guys, she's gonna be out of town, let's meet in secret and > kick her out of SYN/HAK." > > > *** Torrie - so that's a really amazing idea, but I'm leaving for San > Francisco thursday but I'm coming back in 2 weeks. Can we meet thursday to > work out a plan > > Sincerely, > Chris Egeland > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Steve Radonich IV > <[email protected]>wrote: > > Following the events at last nights meeting, and discussion with many > different members, I've decided to move forward with my proposal to have > Torrie removed from the SYNHAK community. I am going to make some slight > modifications to it below and please give your feedback, this will be > concensed (Spelling?) on next Tuesday. > > The proposal is as follows: > > To revoke Torrie Fisher's membership, with the option to reapply, and > forbidding her from being at SYNHAK, or any event SYNHAK is providing, for > a period of 180 days. > > End Proposal. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list > [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
