On 11/6/07, Ted Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm new at this "chair" assignment, so I'd welcome any tips.
Yah, me too. :) > I see reviewing the agenda, that I missed the centralug item. Yah, that was one. Of course, we're *all* at fault for forgetting that one. :) > If there were some issues you felt should have been voted on, you > should have interupted yourself (grin) and made an objection. In all seriousness: When I make these sorts of observations, I tend to take it as a given that I'm criticizing myself, too. I was there, I participated. If "we" didn't do something, that means "me", too. Sorry if that wasn't clear. >> There were other things which really should have been put to a >> formal vote, but never were. > > Specifics, please, and let's resolve these. Specifically: The statement that the board can meet and make decisions, provided a quorum exists, despite the absence of one or more members/officers. > I do run a very casual meeting and perhaps I need to interject a little > more often. I'll work at that. I'd appreciate if the other board members > would speak up, too. I will try to help. Mainly, I'm just trying to say that I think a little more formality might benefit the process. I'm not saying we need to raise our hands, have the chair recognize the speaker, speak for three minutes, yield the floor, have the chair recognize the next speaker, vote to discuss, amend, accept, breathe, etc. But there's a happy medium somewhere between totalitarian discipline and total chaos, and I think we're still in the process of fine tuning to our ideal setting. :) -- Ben _______________________________________________ gnhlug-org mailing list gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org/
