Fwd: Re: Let's hold up a bit here 7

[krandall@world.std.com]

>Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 19:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
>To: Neil Frank <nfrank@mindspring.com>
>cc: krandall@WORLD.STD.COM, rcashin@juno.com, dreimer@wwdc.com
>Subject: Re: Let's hold up a bit here
>
>On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Neil Frank wrote:
>
>> importantly, I want us to all vote the same way. I might without my vote,
>> if I saw the vote going the other way because I believe in consensus
>> management decisions in an organization like the AGA. I feel very
>> uncomfortable about making decisions based on a simple majority.
>
>I think this is a good idea.
>
>> 6. Should we view PAM as blackmail.  I don't think so. As Karen has said, I
>> have concluded that Gomberg is not doing PAM to make money. He may be doing
>> it as an ego thing or to provide self gratification. But face it, that is
>> why many people choose to do become officers in a volunteer organization.
>> Instead of blackmail, I say we seriously look at PAM as an OPPORTUNITY for
>> AGA. An opportunity to partnership with PAM and help make the hobby grow. 
>
>I guess this was my original point.  I don't think Dave is trying to
>blackmail the AGA, I just think some of the arguments for working with PAM
>are treating it like blackmail... I'd like to throw out any reasoning that
>deals with what bad things will happen to the AGA if we do not join with
>PAM, and only consider how the AGA will BENEFIT if joining with the PAM
>project.
>
>
>>    We should continue to identify the potential problems, seek out
>> satisfactory solutions and if we can determine that the risk is low and the
>> benefit is high, then we should vote YES. If we are not comfortable with
>> the contingeny plans and believe that the likelyhood for failure is high or
>> if the situation it places AGA in down the road is bad, then we should vote
>> NO.
>
>Yes, I like this reasoning.
>
>> PS. When should these discussions go to the MC. It is not entirely clear to
>> me if we should first vote as a SC before it goes to the MC or what. One
>> approach is for the SC to say that the idea has POTENTIAL merit and worth
>> putting before the MC for the full vote. If and when it does go to the MC,
>> they need to see as much of the discussion as possible.. otherwise it be
>> out of context. Will the parlimentarian please step forward!!!
>
>This is also confusing to me.  Are the discussions happening on the SC
>right now, or the MC?  Dave always replies to the MC.  If it helps make
>things easier, I can set up a jiffy mailing list just for these
>discussions.
>
>(continued... I'm going to answer Karen's mail next)
>
>-- 
>Erik Olson
>erik at thekrib dot com