On 3 June 2016 at 16:19, Walter Bender <walter.ben...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am certain to yet again be accused of making an ad hominem attack, but I
> have to say that I was extremely disappointed in the lack of preparedness
> for this meeting. Several community members had been working on motions,
> requesting comments and feedback over the course of several months. And yet
> it was only during the meeting itself that feedback from committee members
> was forthcoming. It is fine to raise objections to the motions -- as I had
> made clear in the email discussions leading up to the meeting, I am not
> necessarily in favor of the motions presented -- but the objects raised
> were things that could have and should have been raised and resolved long
> before the meeting itself. As a consequence, we got mired in some
> technicalities instead of talking about the big picture. I cannot speak for
> those who worked on the motions, but I found this frustrating.

I feel very frustrated that not a single motion was voted on today.

While there were voiced objections by some board members to each motion, at
the very last minute, which I do not like, I am also frustrated that the
other board members present were not willing to second either motion. I
think it is important that each motion is voted on, to cast explicit "no"
votes, because that gives important feedback to the person posting the
motion about if they should continue to refine the motion and post another
one, or give up.

I am at a loss as to how to solicit feedback in a timely matter so we can
> make some progress on our backlog of proposals.

I have already posted 2 motions today to specify the format of future SLOB
meetings that I think will lead to rapid progress in passing or failing
motions explicitly.

Since email voting has a 7 day limit, I would also like to request SLOBs
meet once per week at the same time as the monthly meeting unless there are
no motions pending.

IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)

Reply via email to