[volunteers] [svlug] Voting, etc., was Governance Meeting Reminder

Daniel Gimpelevich daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us
Fri Dec 14 12:04:51 PST 2007

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:10:48 -0800, Paul Reiber wrote:

> All... PLEASE... let's move/keep this discussion over here on the
> VOLUNTEERS list, not the MAIN list?  Please?
> It's up to _each_ and _every_ one of us to try and remember:
>    "svlug at lists.svlug.org" - for LINUX stuff
>    "volunteers at lists.svlug.org" - for group and organizational issues
> ...and that means "even if/when the guy you're responding to
> accidentally (or not) broke that rule" as well.

I think that most people who would be interested in that are not on this
list, and that a better solution would be to create a separate mailing
list for general technical matters and keep things like this restricted to
the main list only. This list could then continue for technical matters
relating to SVLUG volunteer efforts.

> OK... enough said... on to more important matters.
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:35:19 -0800, Warren Turkal wrote:
>> The more I look over Robert's Rules of Order, the more it makes sense to me.
> Warren - I agree that roberts rules of order are quite sensible.
> http://www.robertsrules.org/ is a good read.
> I've affected significant change and improvement, in organizations
> much larger than SVLUG, _without_ having to be on the B.O.D. or
> otherwise be a power-player in the organization, by leveraging
> Robert's Rules properly.  They rock, in short.  Robert's rules are a
> _tremendous_ asset to anyone wishing to similarly affect change in
> organizations.
> Last night, we decided it was sensible to spend quite a long time
> considering the difference between "majority vote" and "consensus
> based" approach to things - solely because one individual brought that
> proposal to the group.
> It's certainly just as sensible to take the time to consider RRoO as an option.

OK, that's reasonable.

> We should consider RRoO not just to aid the current member-group
> working on "governance" issues, but as a significant part of the
> "solution" we'll eventually be proposing to the SVLUG membership.

I would like to make the general observation that you used the word
"should" on an SVLUG mailing list in this context just now. (hint, hint)

> Last night's conversation left me wondering, what was really the goal
> of that member get-together - was it to organize itself and chew
> through the work of making a proposal to SVLUG, or was it to make sure
> everyone in the room's opinion was heard?  Which was the primary goal?

Again, why must it be an either-or? What's so mutually exclusive about
those things? Why must one be "primary" over the other?

More information about the volunteers mailing list