Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
There has been a misunderstanding. My proposal last night was filed under discussion items, I am not sure as to why. D. From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: degerov...@yahoo.com; SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 13:50:20 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: Torrie, While I appreciate your input, I don't feel your implied authority argument is valid. I do not see the need to change the proposal at this time. Whoah whoah whoah, when did this become a proposal with any kind of real wording? This was discussion about working on the idea. Thanks, Devin Wolfe From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:17:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't follow. If you have stated many times, champions do not have authority. Why would anti-authoritarian-type-people have any issue with this what so ever? They would just serve as another member on the committee concerned about the growth of SYNHAK. Technically, they have no authority. Realistically, champions have been called the leaders of SYNHAK, benevolent dictator for life, presidents, directors, and many other titles that imply some kind of authority. Consider also the situation of a champion taking over another officer's job while they're still on the CWG. Suddenly they are on the CWG and have actual powers. Devin. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
*tuesday night* From: degerov...@yahoo.com degerov...@yahoo.com To: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net; SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:38 PM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 There has been a misunderstanding. My proposal last night was filed under discussion items, I am not sure as to why. D. From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: degerov...@yahoo.com; SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 13:50:20 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: Torrie, While I appreciate your input, I don't feel your implied authority argument is valid. I do not see the need to change the proposal at this time. Whoah whoah whoah, when did this become a proposal with any kind of real wording? This was discussion about working on the idea. Thanks, Devin Wolfe From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:17:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't follow. If you have stated many times, champions do not have authority. Why would anti-authoritarian-type-people have any issue with this what so ever? They would just serve as another member on the committee concerned about the growth of SYNHAK. Technically, they have no authority. Realistically, champions have been called the leaders of SYNHAK, benevolent dictator for life, presidents, directors, and many other titles that imply some kind of authority. Consider also the situation of a champion taking over another officer's job while they're still on the CWG. Suddenly they are on the CWG and have actual powers. Devin. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
On Feb 27, 2014 4:38 PM, degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: There has been a misunderstanding. My proposal last night was filed under discussion items, I am not sure as to why. I dont remember you saying anything was a proposal. What in particular are you talking about, and what's the wording you are proposing? D. From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: degerov...@yahoo.com; SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 13:50:20 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: Torrie, While I appreciate your input, I don't feel your "implied authority" argument is valid. I do not see the need to change the proposal at this time. Whoah whoah whoah, when did this become a proposal with any kind of real wording? This was discussion about working on the idea. Thanks, Devin Wolfe From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:17:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't follow. If you have stated many times, champions do not have authority. Why would anti-authoritarian-type-people have any issue with this what so ever? They would just serve as another member on the committee concerned about the growth of SYNHAK. Technically, they have no authority. Realistically, champions have been called the leaders of SYNHAK, benevolent dictator for life, presidents, directors, and many other titles that imply some kind of authority. Consider also the situation of a champion taking over another officer's job while they're still on the CWG. Suddenly they are on the CWG and have actual powers. Devin. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
* Devin: Let's put a 100% freeze on all new funds until we figure out a game plan for it. Use a financial advisor, Miami Foundation. - That's from the minutes On Feb 27, 2014 4:48 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net wrote: On Feb 27, 2014 4:38 PM, degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: There has been a misunderstanding. My proposal last night was filed under discussion items, I am not sure as to why. I dont remember you saying anything was a proposal. What in particular are you talking about, and what's the wording you are proposing? D. From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: degerov...@yahoo.com; SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 13:50:20 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: Torrie, While I appreciate your input, I don't feel your implied authority argument is valid. I do not see the need to change the proposal at this time. Whoah whoah whoah, when did this become a proposal with any kind of real wording? This was discussion about working on the idea. Thanks, Devin Wolfe From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:17:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't follow. If you have stated many times, champions do not have authority. Why would anti-authoritarian-type-people have any issue with this what so ever? They would just serve as another member on the committee concerned about the growth of SYNHAK. Technically, they have no authority. Realistically, champions have been called the leaders of SYNHAK, benevolent dictator for life, presidents, directors, and many other titles that imply some kind of authority. Consider also the situation of a champion taking over another officer's job while they're still on the CWG. Suddenly they are on the CWG and have actual powers. Devin. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
Also: ** Justin: Proposes that we create a working group for this grant. ** Tim: Do they have specific restrictions? *** They use the words charitable use. Which carries more meaning than may appear at the surface. On Feb 27, 2014 6:21 PM, Michael Griesacker mgriesac...@gmail.com wrote: * Devin: Let's put a 100% freeze on all new funds until we figure out a game plan for it. Use a financial advisor, Miami Foundation. - That's from the minutes On Feb 27, 2014 4:48 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net wrote: On Feb 27, 2014 4:38 PM, degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: There has been a misunderstanding. My proposal last night was filed under discussion items, I am not sure as to why. I dont remember you saying anything was a proposal. What in particular are you talking about, and what's the wording you are proposing? D. From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: degerov...@yahoo.com; SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 13:50:20 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: Torrie, While I appreciate your input, I don't feel your implied authority argument is valid. I do not see the need to change the proposal at this time. Whoah whoah whoah, when did this become a proposal with any kind of real wording? This was discussion about working on the idea. Thanks, Devin Wolfe From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:17:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't follow. If you have stated many times, champions do not have authority. Why would anti-authoritarian-type-people have any issue with this what so ever? They would just serve as another member on the committee concerned about the growth of SYNHAK. Technically, they have no authority. Realistically, champions have been called the leaders of SYNHAK, benevolent dictator for life, presidents, directors, and many other titles that imply some kind of authority. Consider also the situation of a champion taking over another officer's job while they're still on the CWG. Suddenly they are on the CWG and have actual powers. Devin. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
My understanding of the working group was that they would come up with plans to suggest to the board and members as to hope to allocate funds. This doesn't require a proposal since each disbursement would be a proposal or board action. Perhaps I misunderstood the intent though. Regards, Andrew L On Feb 27, 2014 6:31 PM, Michael Griesacker mgriesac...@gmail.com wrote: Also: ** Justin: Proposes that we create a working group for this grant. ** Tim: Do they have specific restrictions? *** They use the words charitable use. Which carries more meaning than may appear at the surface. On Feb 27, 2014 6:21 PM, Michael Griesacker mgriesac...@gmail.com wrote: * Devin: Let's put a 100% freeze on all new funds until we figure out a game plan for it. Use a financial advisor, Miami Foundation. - That's from the minutes On Feb 27, 2014 4:48 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net wrote: On Feb 27, 2014 4:38 PM, degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: There has been a misunderstanding. My proposal last night was filed under discussion items, I am not sure as to why. I dont remember you saying anything was a proposal. What in particular are you talking about, and what's the wording you are proposing? D. From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: degerov...@yahoo.com; SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 13:50:20 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: Torrie, While I appreciate your input, I don't feel your implied authority argument is valid. I do not see the need to change the proposal at this time. Whoah whoah whoah, when did this become a proposal with any kind of real wording? This was discussion about working on the idea. Thanks, Devin Wolfe From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:17:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't follow. If you have stated many times, champions do not have authority. Why would anti-authoritarian-type-people have any issue with this what so ever? They would just serve as another member on the committee concerned about the growth of SYNHAK. Technically, they have no authority. Realistically, champions have been called the leaders of SYNHAK, benevolent dictator for life, presidents, directors, and many other titles that imply some kind of authority. Consider also the situation of a champion taking over another officer's job while they're still on the CWG. Suddenly they are on the CWG and have actual powers. Devin. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
On Thursday, February 27, 2014 18:30:54 Michael Griesacker wrote: Also: ** Justin: Proposes that we create a working group for this grant. ** Tim: Do they have specific restrictions? *** They use the words charitable use. Which carries more meaning than may appear at the surface. If thats a proposal, perhaps Justin would like to send it to discuss@ so we can discuss how it would work. You can't just bring up during a meeting I propose FOO and never follow up on it. What good is a proposal if the proponent doesn't work to push it through and achieve consensus? On Feb 27, 2014 6:21 PM, Michael Griesacker mgriesac...@gmail.com wrote: * Devin: Let's put a 100% freeze on all new funds until we figure out a game plan for it. Use a financial advisor, Miami Foundation. - That's from the minutes On Feb 27, 2014 4:48 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net wrote: On Feb 27, 2014 4:38 PM, degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: There has been a misunderstanding. My proposal last night was filed under discussion items, I am not sure as to why. I dont remember you saying anything was a proposal. What in particular are you talking about, and what's the wording you are proposing? D. From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: degerov...@yahoo.com; SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 13:50:20 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: Torrie, While I appreciate your input, I don't feel your implied authority argument is valid. I do not see the need to change the proposal at this time. Whoah whoah whoah, when did this become a proposal with any kind of real wording? This was discussion about working on the idea. Thanks, Devin Wolfe From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:17:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't follow. If you have stated many times, champions do not have authority. Why would anti-authoritarian-type-people have any issue with this what so ever? They would just serve as another member on the committee concerned about the growth of SYNHAK. Technically, they have no authority. Realistically, champions have been called the leaders of SYNHAK, benevolent dictator for life, presidents, directors, and many other titles that imply some kind of authority. Consider also the situation of a champion taking over another officer's job while they're still on the CWG. Suddenly they are on the CWG and have actual powers. Devin. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
On Thursday, February 27, 2014 21:58:00 a l wrote: My understanding of the working group was that they would come up with plans to suggest to the board and members as to hope to allocate funds. This doesn't require a proposal since each disbursement would be a proposal or board action. Sounds reasonable. Perhaps I misunderstood the intent though. Regards, Andrew L On Feb 27, 2014 6:31 PM, Michael Griesacker mgriesac...@gmail.com wrote: Also: ** Justin: Proposes that we create a working group for this grant. ** Tim: Do they have specific restrictions? *** They use the words charitable use. Which carries more meaning than may appear at the surface. On Feb 27, 2014 6:21 PM, Michael Griesacker mgriesac...@gmail.com wrote: * Devin: Let's put a 100% freeze on all new funds until we figure out a game plan for it. Use a financial advisor, Miami Foundation. - That's from the minutes On Feb 27, 2014 4:48 PM, Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net wrote: On Feb 27, 2014 4:38 PM, degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: There has been a misunderstanding. My proposal last night was filed under discussion items, I am not sure as to why. I dont remember you saying anything was a proposal. What in particular are you talking about, and what's the wording you are proposing? D. From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: degerov...@yahoo.com; SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:48 PM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 13:50:20 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: Torrie, While I appreciate your input, I don't feel your implied authority argument is valid. I do not see the need to change the proposal at this time. Whoah whoah whoah, when did this become a proposal with any kind of real wording? This was discussion about working on the idea. Thanks, Devin Wolfe From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:17:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't follow. If you have stated many times, champions do not have authority. Why would anti-authoritarian-type-people have any issue with this what so ever? They would just serve as another member on the committee concerned about the growth of SYNHAK. Technically, they have no authority. Realistically, champions have been called the leaders of SYNHAK, benevolent dictator for life, presidents, directors, and many other titles that imply some kind of authority. Consider also the situation of a champion taking over another officer's job while they're still on the CWG. Suddenly they are on the CWG and have actual powers. Devin. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 08:26:10 Phong wrote: ** Torrie: I have no problem with champions and CWG coexisting or even Champions being on the CWG. CWG’s only purpose is for community health. This is entirely wrong. I do have significant problems with champions being on the CWG. As I stated multiple times in the discussion, members of the CWG should *not* have any other position within the governance structure. To do so otherwise would instill resentment towards them from anti-authoritarians. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
As note taker, I would like to apologize for misrepresenting what was said in the meeting. Please feel free to edit the notes to more accurately reflect your thoughts and what was said in last night's meeting. Chris On 2/26/2014 8:56 AM, Torrie Fischer wrote: On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 08:26:10 Phong wrote: ** Torrie: I have no problem with champions and CWG coexisting or even Champions being on the CWG. CWG’s only purpose is for community health. This is entirely wrong. I do have significant problems with champions being on the CWG. As I stated multiple times in the discussion, members of the CWG should *not* have any other position within the governance structure. To do so otherwise would instill resentment towards them from anti-authoritarians. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
I don't follow. If you have stated many times, champions do not have authority. Why would anti-authoritarian-type-people have any issue with this what so ever? They would just serve as another member on the committee concerned about the growth of SYNHAK. Devin. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:17:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't follow. If you have stated many times, champions do not have authority. Why would anti-authoritarian-type-people have any issue with this what so ever? They would just serve as another member on the committee concerned about the growth of SYNHAK. Technically, they have no authority. Realistically, champions have been called the leaders of SYNHAK, benevolent dictator for life, presidents, directors, and many other titles that imply some kind of authority. Consider also the situation of a champion taking over another officer's job while they're still on the CWG. Suddenly they are on the CWG and have actual powers. Devin. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
Seems odd to me that we vote members into positions, then act like they cannot be trusted. The 3 Champions act as the checks to oversee the operations and act as the voice of the members and non-members. I feel like the champions have (in the past) been VERY understanding of the complex nature of conflict resolution. We elect not 1 but up to 3 for a reason. This allows a person multiple channels of communication. In the past, concerns have remained candid and have been handled with tact. When has our current system broke down? I know that people have had disagreements about the direction of the space but that is expected and encouraged. Without it we stagnate. Issues arise when we cannot respect each other and resort to yelling, name calling, or other tactics. Maybe instead of a working group, outside of the elected board, we have a talk about Roberts Rules of Order, conflict resolution, and softskills? It could help everyone work together more fluidly. If this is of interest to anyone else I can talk to the speakers I know and have them lead all interested in a workshop/talk. On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:17 AM, degerov...@yahoo.com degerov...@yahoo.comwrote: I don't follow. If you have stated many times, champions do not have authority. Why would anti-authoritarian-type-people have any issue with this what so ever? They would just serve as another member on the committee concerned about the growth of SYNHAK. Devin. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Androidhttps://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android -- * From: * Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net; * To: * SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org; * Subject: * Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 * Sent: * Wed, Feb 26, 2014 1:56:04 PM On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 08:26:10 Phong wrote: ** Torrie: I have no problem with champions and CWG coexisting or even Champions being on the CWG. CWG's only purpose is for community health. This is entirely wrong. I do have significant problems with champions being on the CWG. As I stated multiple times in the discussion, members of the CWG should *not* have any other position within the governance structure. To do so otherwise would instill resentment towards them from anti-authoritarians. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 09:40:04 Justin Herman wrote: When has our current system broke down? my sides ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
Torrie, While I appreciate your input, I don't feel your implied authority argument is valid. I do not see the need to change the proposal at this time. Thanks, Devin Wolfe From: Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net To: SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:17:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't follow. If you have stated many times, champions do not have authority. Why would anti-authoritarian-type-people have any issue with this what so ever? They would just serve as another member on the committee concerned about the growth of SYNHAK. Technically, they have no authority. Realistically, champions have been called the leaders of SYNHAK, benevolent dictator for life, presidents, directors, and many other titles that imply some kind of authority. Consider also the situation of a champion taking over another officer's job while they're still on the CWG. Suddenly they are on the CWG and have actual powers. Devin. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
Would it be possible to have a speaker/workshop on the topic of conflict resolution here? Do we know any group theripist that would do it for free? On the website it could be a trained skill line item like bandsaw, conflict resolution, 3d printer, ... :) On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:50 PM, degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: Torrie, While I appreciate your input, I don't feel your implied authority argument is valid. I do not see the need to change the proposal at this time. Thanks, Devin Wolfe -- *From:* Torrie Fischer tdfisc...@hackerbots.net *To:* SYN/HAK discussion list discuss@synhak.org *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:28 AM *Subject:* Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25 On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:17:31 degerov...@yahoo.com wrote: I don't follow. If you have stated many times, champions do not have authority. Why would anti-authoritarian-type-people have any issue with this what so ever? They would just serve as another member on the committee concerned about the growth of SYNHAK. Technically, they have no authority. Realistically, champions have been called the leaders of SYNHAK, benevolent dictator for life, presidents, directors, and many other titles that imply some kind of authority. Consider also the situation of a champion taking over another officer's job while they're still on the CWG. Suddenly they are on the CWG and have actual powers. Devin. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@synhak.org https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
