On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:02:06PM +0100, Kevin Donnelly wrote: > On Monday 06 Jun 2005 11:43, Chris Croughton wrote: > > The claim was that "If something didn't happen at a meeting, and is > > therefore not minuted, then it didn't happen at all." ?Do you agree with > > that? ?No email decisions, no phone decisions, nothing will do except a > > proper meeting with official minutes? ?That sounds like a recipe for > > either having no decisions at all for months or for losing your > > volunteers...
Where did the extra question marks come from? > Perhaps annoyingly, the answer to this has to be "yes" - if something related > to structural issues, how something is to be done, etc, is decided on, it > needs to be minuted *somewhere*, even if that is in the future, and in the > meantime, because of exigencies of time, etc, the new arrangements are put > into operation (hence no need for paralysis). That doesn't answer my question as 'yes'. I repeat, do you agree with the claim to which I was responding, vis. "If something didn't happen at a meeting, and is therefore not minuted, then it didn't happen at all." I take it that you think that committees which never have any face-to-face meetings don't actually exist. I can assure you that they do exist, as do many other events which aren't "at a meeting, and therefore not minuted". If I make a phone call to another committee member, and don't minute it, that phone call still happened as did any results of it. If a committee decide to go out for a Chinese meal together, and don't minute the fact (and why should they?) the meal still happened. > Are you seriously suggesting > that a committee just does what it likes, without telling anyone else what is > going on, providing a note of record, etc? No, where did I say that? I asked the question: "... nothing will do except a proper meeting with official minutes?" Quite how you twist that to "without telling anyone else what is going on, providing a note of record, etc?", I don't know, but then I'm not a politician, I'm a programmer, when I ask a question it means what it says not something different. > And you have a very odd notion of government procedures if you think > that is what happens there, any other impressions to the contrary. Well, since I didn't say that I think that "that is what happens there" (i.e. ""without telling anyone else what is going on, providing a note of record, etc?") your strawman falls down. Telling someone what is going on is not the same as "a proper meeting with official minutes". Chris C _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
