[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Membership] Is the fishbowl transparent enough?
Diane's right about the note taking challenge of conference calls, and We'll
all try to help Molly with this.We don't vote really, but voice opinions and
I try to get a sense of the direction. We all know there will be more turns
at bat as we continue to discuss the issues and others chime in on the
lists. Quite frankly with the exception of the occassional flames, I learn
alot from all the people who are taking time to commment. I may be mistaken
about this but I think you are seeing most of the comments made by members
of the membership committee in the open forum. Can't think of much else that
isn't administrative. Diane/ Molly am I right? You'll see/hear the fishbowl
in Singapore when we have our open meeting where each of the members will
then have to really get quite specific.
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 1999 10:18 PM
To: Diane Cabell
Subject: Re: [Membership] Is the fishbowl transparent enough?
At 19:10 6/02/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Joop Teernstra wrote:
>> Comment: It would be good to know who are the members in favour of an
>> Singapore meeting and who against.
>> This is not about the validity of the argument, but simply a desire to
>> a voting track record of each committee member. *That's* a fishbowl.
>It would be if you needed to know this in order to decide whether or not to
>re-elect this person to the office. But this is not an elective office,
>not sure why you need to know who is voting for what. This question
>that you would target individuals in some way. That makes me a little
>uncomfortable, because this is not a place for lobbying efforts. This is a
>place to know what the issue is and what the options are. Who supports it
>seems irrelevant at the MAC level.
Diane, You are right.
However, knowing a member's voting record on diverse issues may make it
easier to understand the whole philosophy of the position.
>The real reason Molly's notes read that way, though, is because several of
>often start talking at once and she can't tell whose voice is saying what.
>After all, you can't raise your hand in a teleconference. She's made a
>judgment call that it's more important to get the issue recorded than to
>the teleconference discussion to ask everyone to repeat their statement. I
This goes to show that the quality of email discussion can be higher and is
definitely more transparant than teleconferences.
What do the members think of my proposal for a "read only" list?