On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 04:31:57PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote: > I actually feel some of the formalism we've adopted lately is leading > to worse decision making as we don't discuss these things as well as > we did before, and when questions came up in the middle of the vote, > they were ruled as out of order and never re-addressed. (Specifically, > when Keith & Rich voted "No", was that because you felt more discussion > was needed, that we should consider another action, or because you agreed > with the proposal to dissolve?)
If you didn't understand why I would vote no, then we ended debate too soon. Cutting off debate prematurely isn't a byproduct of following proper procedure, it's just a mistake. If we were really following parlimentary procedure, we'd be voting explicitly to limit, extend, or end debate and the problem would be even less likely to occur. > And I know Ben is annoyed that at the end of the meeting, no one > formally moved to adopt his proposal, so we didn't even discuss > whether we were just out of time for that meeting, thought it was > premature given the trademark policy discussion going on elsewhere, > or just plain a bad idea. It shouldn't be that we thought we were out of time; someone could have moved to consider it, then immediately moved to postpone it until the next meeting. -- Keith M Wesolowski "Sir, we're surrounded!" FishWorks "Excellent; we can attack in any direction!"
