On 11/6/07, Bill McGonigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Most groups of which I'm a member use the "short-short > version" ...
Something like this, I think would be appropriate. > The primary benefit is that nobody feels they didn't have a chance to > speak ... At the most recent meeting, it was largely a free-for-all, which meant that loud mouths like me monopolized the discussion. That's neither fair nor right. I think some kind of "flow control" or "collision avoidance" mechanism is needed. > We did some of this at the Board meeting, and I think it worked out > just fine. The problem is that we had a formal vote on only two things, and one of them was the motion to adjourn. :) There were other things which really should have been put to a formal vote, but never were. Nobody yelled "I object!" on the audio record, but that's not the same thing. I would like there to something a bit more positive-assurance. :) -- Ben _______________________________________________ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
