Many of the items on the agenda for the board meeting tonight could be handled in a membership meeting. Or at the least they could be discussed further before bringing them to the board. This is important to note since the board meetings have been running 4+ hours lately. Specifically these items, someone correct me if you think otherwise.
Remove Unauthorized Camera System (Brooks Scharff)
Re-authorize Amateur Radio’s current camera system (Justin Edwards)
Sell Forklift (Brooks Scharff)
Clean Desk Policy (Brooks Scharff)
DMS Computer Policy (Brooks Scharff)
DMS Computer Access Policy (Stan Simmons)
Infrastructure Scope Creep (Allen)
Define what makes a committee and special interest group (Pearce’s item tables from last meeting)
Define a committee primarily by its utilization and level of participation (Nicholas Schell)
The full list of agenda items for the meeting can be found on the wiki.
Honestly my item is only a counterpoint to the idea of ranking committees by importance and/or putting tools above the members who use them (“tyranny of the tools”). Hoping we can skip it altogether and talk solutions instead… which, agreed, should have already occurred before this meeting.
Thank you for bringing this up.
I actually bugged out of sitting in on the board meeting tonight because I knew it was going to be >2 hours long.
The last member meeting was the same way. I left after 3 hours. I have no idea how long it went on, or if anything was accomplished other than no vote since enough members did not sign in.
Pertinent to the member meetings specifically, since that is where many people might cast a vote for something, I would like to suggest anything being voted upon be moved to the front of the agenda. The committee reports are important, but sucked an hour or more out of the last meeting. I see no reason to rehash what is already posted to the wiki for all to read unless someone has specific questions, and I would propose Q&A be moved to the end of the meeting, especially since most of the time, it could be handled elsewhere, as proposed in the “SRC3” style.
Pertinent to tonight’s board meeting, I would like to add to the list:
Clarify Modified SRC3 Meeting Procedure (Andrew LeCody)
Drop SRC3 Meeting Format (Benjamin Groves)
both of which seems to me are simply up for discussion and need not be at a meeting at all.
Personally I would like to see items 1, 2, and 3 of the “Modified SRC3 Process” strictly adhered. As soon as something becomes a discussion, it needs to be tabled so the discussion can take place outside of the meeting. The meetings are where decisions are supposed to be finalized. Of course, said discussion should be available to all such as talk forum, wiki, etc. (i.e. no secret meetings or decisions made in the “hangout”, the bar, the golf course, or other invitation-only venues unless those discussions are made “public” to the entire membership). This should cut the meetings down to an hour or two, which would be much more manageable for anyone interested in being more makery and less meetingey (most of the membership, I presume, and I can’t imagine that doesn’t include the board).
Well many of those items where added to the end of the member meeting for discussion.
@jast We are not at all going to be holding to the Modified SRC3 Process. Andrew Lecody made it completely clear that these were simply guidelines and in no way the rules. This is the reason Ben Groves added his counter point of just get rid of the guide lines because we don’t follow them. But, we still have the guide lines so please just understand that they really don’t matter.
I 100% agree with you Andrew that we should move the items for voting to the start of the member meeting. This has been suggested for years now. But, we are showing up 1/3 less than quorum on a pretty regular basis as well. Last meeting we were 10 shy of the ability to vote. So these are both issues.
I’m a little sorry to differ with Andrew LeCody on this, and largely agree with what I’m understand of Ben’s position, though I disagree on his proposed solution; we are straying too far from the allegedly intended guidelines for them to be called such. That is like saying the yellow stripe down the center of a road is a guideline for the field we’re plowing.
I also disagree on the assertion that we were 1/3 short on quorum at the last member meeting. Had everyone who attended been on time or assigned proxy, hung around for the vote, even after the first announcement that we were short, and we had voted within the first 1.5 hours, by my estimate of watching people bail, we would have made quorum with no less than the required 34 votes. Also had the folks working that night assigned proxy or attended, this would have been a certainty. Unfortunately there were several tardy arrivals, some of whom were allowed to sign in even after the first announcement, which brought the total to only 4 short on the sign in sheet. Of course, some folks bailed as soon as the first announcement was made that quorum had not been met. My point here really is that if we would stick to some rules, and make the votable items of greater importance, i.e. moved to the front of the queue, quorum would be more easily achieved. As it stands, folks are tardy, haven’t assigned proxy, and expect huge delays in getting business done, if it happens at all. This is no way to garnish participation. It is further, in my opinion, blatantly wasteful of a tremendous number of people’s time. “Meetings” should be about official business first, then fellowship and visiting, and not at all about meetings. Otherwise they’re just social gatherings.