[volunteers] [svlug] Define Policies and By-Laws

Daniel Gimpelevich daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us
Sun Dec 2 21:12:56 PST 2007

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:50:24 -0800, Christian Einfeldt wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2007 8:03 PM, Daniel Gimpelevich <
> daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 19:32:16 -0800, Christian Einfeldt wrote:
>> > I wouldn't want to have you go to all that trouble if I am the only
>> person
>> > who needs the conference bridge.  Let's see who else might need this.
>> Although Kristian has unsubscribed, I didn't see him say that he is also
>> withdrawing his interest in attending the conference,
> he also is still posting, fortunately.  I like Kristian, and I think that
> his cheerful disposition is a very positive influence, and I hope he
> continues to stay involved.

Yes, he's still posting, if posting a message notifying us that it will be
his last counts...

>> but that may just be
>> me. Interesting: He and you both shared an intention to attend in person,
>> but when told that maybe participating remotely might be a better idea,
>> you reconsidered participating,
> No, I did not reconsider participating.  I was merely trying to be polite,
> because Warren said that it might be some effort, and as a simple end user,
> I am not sure how helpful I always am.  But thanks for bringing that up,
> because it was a reasonable inference, and maybe someone else made the same
> inference.
>> and he unsubscribed entirely. What does
>> this say in relation to what was said about "quality of contributions?"
> Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clarify this point, Daniel.  This is
> the Silicon Valley LUG.  Meaning south bay.  Meaning a long way from SF.
> And I have no car.  And at least one person, Rick, has said that he thinks
> that it is a good idea for people to appear in person to meetings,
> particularly to voting meetings.  Perhaps other might feel the same way.  It
> was my intention to be diplomatic and say that if members generally prefer
> in-person attendance of the voting membership and / or it would be difficult
> for Warren (who is probably really busy) to set up a phone conference just
> for me, maybe it would be the considerate thing to do to save Warren the
> inconvenience of contacting other staff at his office to try to set up a
> conference call for one person.
> One can only ask so many favors of others, and if it was going to be an
> inconvenience for Warren to set up a conference call, then I would prefer
> not to waste his valuable time that he could otherwise better use to advance
> our community's interests.

So, you offered to attend in person to head off the possibility that
participation might prompt someone else to offer something that would be
an imposition on them? Wow, this discussion is getting stranger by the

More information about the volunteers mailing list