USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives

Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2001-10 > 1002515343


From: "Roger Swafford" <>
Subject: Re: [ALL-L] Circus
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 23:29:03 -0500
References: <F23GCIFoPkG0rm3rxUn000157aa@hotmail.com> <3BBF11CA.5C27B40F@dgs.dgsys.com>


Hi Alice,

From: "Alice Gayley" <>
> With all due respect, Roger, the one single theme that
> came through before, during, and after the last election,
> was the desire for the Board to conduct its deliberations
> and business in full view of the project membership. Now,
> that we have been granted this "warts and all" view of the board, we
> must also keep in mind that the Board needs time to present and discuss
> ideas before rushing into making ill-defined motions that have to be
> rescinded by later motions, as has happened on more than one occasion.
> The Board no longer has a secret list or a caucus room in which to
> pledge cooperation and build coalitions and concensus before presenting
> motions to the entire board.
>
The AB still has the Board-Exec list and secrecy of details regarding those
proceedings are required.

> In my view Robert's Rules of Order or other parlimentary guideline is a
> tool, nothing more or nothing less. And, this tool should be used to
> facilitate, not confuse and confound, the Board's cyberspace
> discussions.
>
My point is past boards have not used those tools. The current board is at
least talking of formulating some procedures for cyberspace, but seems to
continue the old trend.

> And let's keep things in perspective. Which is more important? The
> outcome(s) of the Board's deliberations or the parlimentary authority
> followed by the board during its deliberations? Which will have the
> greatest long-term impact on the County Coordinators and the USGenWeb
> project?
>
I believe the outcome(s) would be improved by following accepted procedures
as modified for online use. The application of parliamentary law will have
the greatest impact on our future.


> <SNIP>Apparently we are gonna suffer through endless studies,
> suggestions, proposals<SNIP>
> Please explain the downside of studying a particular suggestions/concern
> to determine its impact on the USGenWeb Project? The committees that
> studied our election process and the need for a Service/Trade mark were
> not exactly a waste of time. Or did I miss something?
>
There were numerous items not included in the guidelines/instructions for
those committees. Some questions relating to instructions not given... Why
do we have to ask for reports? Was the EC given the "power" to change their
guidelines without approval of the AB? Is it permitted for the EC to
discuss replacement members without the ex-officio members
observing/participating?
As a standing committee the EC was not formed correctly, each new AB is
entitled to re-appoint any standing cmtes.

> Alice Gayley
>

This thread: