Re: MCM - Digest V1 #175

[David Lass <davidlass@villasunscape.com>]

#1) I vote "YES" that I should start negotiations with Gomberg. We will know 
very
quickly whether we are going to be able to make a deal with him or not. If a 
"no"
vote on this really is saying "No we should not join up with PAM" then maybe we 
need
to vote on that first.
#2) I would think that 3 days would be sufficient time to get responses, but 
would
suggest that if Bob has not gotten responses from some people by the 3rd day he
extend them the courtesy of sending out another email informing them that if 
they do
vote they will be recorded as absent.
3) As I said before, many thanks to Bob McCaw.

"Robert P. Cashin" wrote:

> Hi Mary,
>
>         Boy, I'm sure glad you wrote. I was beginning to wonder if you were
> receiving our messages. One of the problems I have is addressing a list
> where the members are not shown. I know who is supposed to be on the list
> but can't be sure that someone hasn't been added or deleted without me
> knowing about it. I guess we can write it off to me being an old fuddy
> duddy who still isn't completely comfortable with e-mail protocols and
> procedures.
>
> Bob,
> >
> >    I think you are making a big mistake in assuming that non-responders
>
> >favor going ahead with PAM at this particular time.  I, for one, do not.
>
> > I didn't respond because over the last few days I have been extremely
> >busy.  It seems to me that this issue has come up before, and I regret
> >not speaking up sooner.  Silence can mean a number of things.
> >Assumptions make for poor communication and miscommunication.  Perhaps
> >other non-responders like myself have also been extremely busy.  The
> >only way to know where a non-responder stands is to hear it from him
> >or her.  As far as I'm concerned a decision is not a Management
> Committee
> >decision unless everyone has voted or indicated that they have
> >abstained.  I think you have been premature about giving a go-head for
> >David Lass to begin negotiations with Dave Gomberg.  I agree with most
> >of what you and Erik have expressed.  I think that we should have a
> >formal vote.
>
>         One of the reasons I phrased my instructions to Lass as I did was to
> indicate that I had expected a response and was disappointed by how few
> responded. Part of the problem is that we have no agreement on how long
> to wait for a response or how fast it should be sent.
>
> >    I also think that part of the problem was the way in which you =
> >called for votes.  You wanted us to respond with our "ideas".  In the
> >past people have responded with their opinions and statements backing
> >up their positions.  I have "voted" in this way a couple of times,  but
> >in the case of this last vote, I had things to say, but didn't have time
>
> >to put my thoughts on paper.  I think we should a ballot type vote.
> This
> >is what we board members of BAS do.  Our president sends out a
> >"ballot", which states the question, and then beneath it, I favor X or I
> do not
> >favor X.  If we had such a form and then wanted to make a statement,
> >we could, but it would be optional.  If a committee member does not
> >respond, then the chair should call send out reminders for people who
> >have not yet voted.  I would think that if an individual has not
> >responded within a pre-determined time period, their non-vote should
> >be considered an abstention .
>
>         I like this idea and will use it for all future proposals requiring a
> vote.
>
>         This is the first formal call for a vote. Should I instruct Dave Lass 
> to
> negotiate with Gomberg over AGA's participation with PAM ( specifically
> to mail PAM to our members in place of TAG )  YES or NO? Dave, don't
> discontinue anything as yet. We would look pretty foolish to the rest of
> the world if we stopped and restarted the negotiations again. If we
> decide not to do it, we can reject the proposal so we aren't committing
> to anything by continuing to negotiate.
>
>         Second formal call for a vote. How long should I wait before counting
> the votes? Please give this one a lot of thought because I'd like to use
> the results as our future policy. I am retired and can respond pretty
> quickly. Sometimes I fall into the trap of thinking everybody can respond
> similarly. There have been times, however, when I still didn't respond
> quickly because I needed more time to thing about the issue. All these
> things should be considered in determining this time frame.
> >
> >    I have been deliberately been avoiding giving my opinions because
> >I am in an awkward position as a newcomer to the Management Committee
> >and the new editor of TAG.  I was disappointed when the PAM thing came
> up
> >for serious consideration because my hope was to make TAG a better
> >magazine.  All along I have I have been extremely reluctant to commit
> >to PAM sight unseen.  I can't feel good about casting my vote for an
> >unproved publication.  I also think their are other red flags:  the
> >publisher David has picked out, the lack of unity among Management
> Committee members about this project and the manner in which Dave G.
> >has gone about trying to get us to accept his proposals to name a few.
> At
> >the Fish Extravaganza, he approached me and asked me to hand in 4 AGA
> >pages for PAM by January 10th.  Erik thought this scared me, but I
> >felt Dave was being presumptuous, assuming that I would do this when no
> one
> >had even asked me, and in my opinion, that the MC was farther along in
> >our deliberations than we in fact were.  Also Neil and I had not even
> >begun to talk about the transition.  My read of our  the meeting we
> >had without Dave, was that Paul, Jack and I expressed misgivings about
> >going ahead with the project.  Neil was the only person who seemed
> really
> >positive about PAM.  What bothered me most of all was when I expressed
> >doubts about having January as a realistic publication date, Dave said
> >that if we couldn't go along with it, the deal was "off".  I tried to
> >reason with him, but to no avail.  His attitude seemed to be "my way
> >or the highway."  Under ordinary circumstances I would not choose to
> work
> >with someone like Dave.
>
>         Mary, I am sorry this thing came up at the same time we were
> transitioning editors. I anticipated you might be upset and tried to head
> this off at the pass by emailing you some of the background. However, I
> had gotten hold of an incorrect email address and when I got the right
> one, forgot to resend the message.
>
>         I want to encourage you and everyone else to freely express your
> opinions on each and every issue. One of the principle benefits of the MC
> is the number of different perspectives we bring to each issue. To not
> respond denies us valuable input.
> >
> >    I did, say, however, if the PAM thing does go through, I would we
> >willing to be the editor for those four pages.  This is not because I
> >favor TAG being absorbed by PAM, but because of my loyalty to AGA.  If
> >this is what people really want, I'll go along with it.  But IMO,
> >going through with PAM at this particular point in time would be a big
> >mistake.
>
>         Thank you. It is not easy to volunteer for something you don't feel 
> good
> about, but to do it anyway in the best interests of the organization.
>
>
> >Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:59:30 -0500
> >From: "Mary McCaw" <marymccaw@mediaone.net>
> >Subject: Previous e-mail; lawyer
> >Bob,
> >
> >    Oops!  I wanted my husband to read my last e-mail before I sent
> >it,and he was trying to make himself a copy by e-mailing it to himself.
>
> >On our computer one can't print a draft.  So my e-mail went off
> unedited.
> > I didn't have the opportunity to reconsider what I wanted to say.  Too
> >ate!  I will just add this to clarify what I said about Dave.  I got
> >to know Dave a little on the Amazon trip.  He has a lot of good
> >qualities.  I don't really dislike him, but he has a lot of rough edges
> that make
> >him difficult to work with.
>
>         This seems to be a universal assessment.
>
> >    As some of you know, my husband is an actuary and a tax lawyer
> >with a lot of business experience.  He is in partnership with an
> >accountant.  He has been following our PAM deliberations with interest,
> sometimes
> >even reading my e-mails before I get a chance to see them!  He
> >proposes the following:  he will do the incorporation and file for
> non-profit
> >status without a fee.
>
>         Third formal proposal for a vote. Do we accept Bob McCaw's offer to do
> our incorporation for free? YES or NO? Recently I emailed Steve Dixon to
> see if he would be interested in doing this for us at the same time he
> does if for PAM. Gomberg and others thought he would be interested. I was
> really hoping for him to volunteer to do it for free. It was only a day
> or so ago and I haven't heard from him yet but a volunteer is a volunteer
> and the best way to run an organization is to pay out money only when you
> have to.
>
>         So far the chair has been a frustrating job for me. I have been 
> anxious
> to be able to show some progress and it is difficult to do with PAM in
> the way. The reason I wanted to show some progress it to give us a
> feeling of accomplishment that will encourage us to further achievements.
> Ok, lets get those votes in.
>
>                                         cu, Bob
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Get the Internet just the way you want it.
> Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
> Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.