Re: Response and comments regarding the motion on meetings

["Robert G. Brown" <bob@xxxxxxx>]

>>We are looking at other forms of change for meetings.... We have some
>>interesting notions of what we can do ...I urge you (everyone
>>reading this message) to contact Brenda if you have something to offer.

>Yes Please!!!!  Thanks to those of you that have contacted me or
>have been willing to present on topics you feel comfortable with...
...
Until now, we have had two people do close to 80% of our presentations, another
person has done three, and a couple of others have each done once. This is 
NOT about "keeping score"; each of us has things to offer, and getting up in 
front of a meeting and giving a talk is one of the opportunities we provide.

>I still think we should find a way to pole our mailing list...
>...feel like we are trying to make decisions based on what we think to be 
>true instead of finding out what people want/think
Agreed, understood, and actually assumed from at the time of original writing.
I'm not attempting to make assumptions about this, and I would agree that we
need to find out what will draw people to meetings.

>	I like the idea of knowing the motions before hand!  That would be
>very helpful!!  I wouldn't mind just one meeting a month to deal with
>business... 
Yes, that would be much better. It also means people have more time to consider
actions, and people can come to meetings with positions well known and under-
stood. I belong to a couple of groups that conduct almost all debate and com-
ment via email. We exchange position papers and lay out arguments. By the time
there's a physical meeting, there's some final debate and voting; and the 
group is much more productive as a result.

>...but I still have trouble with the wording "official and
>unoffical meetings" 
Agreed. I think of this as being "regular meetings" or "working meetings" as
opposed to the monthly "business meeting".

>And I'm not sure I understand what to do with point C under Unoffical
>Meetings... Presentations not required.

>Does that mean that I schedule speakers for just the "offical" meeting?
Not until the motion passes, andperhaps not until we have something to 
substitute for presentations. We've seen what happens when there is no speaker,
no structure. Things deteriorate into pure bull session, and attendence falls
very quickly. If the motion passes, I'll make some recomendations about how
we can move to other forms of meeting, many of which have been mentioned here.

>	Yes.. I think it would be Ideal if the person presenting could E the
>webmaster a copy of the outline for the presentations with what info they
>feel is pertinent.
Right now the acting webmasters ask the presenter for a copy of the materials 
actually used in the presentation, and these are added to our web site.

This reduces, but ndoes not remove, the requirement for notes taken and 
published during technical portions of our meetings. The presenters materials 
cannot contain questions raised and answered, since they were written before
the presentation (duh!).

Also, other items of common interest take place at our meetings, such as 
calls for help, announcements of news items, and other dialogue. Some of 
this is usually appropriate for note-taking and distribution, which I would
like to leave up to the discretion of the note-taker.

                                                         Regards,
                                                          ---> RGB <---