[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Index by Month]
Re: MCM - Digest V1 #176
-----Original Message-----
From: MCM - Digest <owner-aga-mcm-digest@thekrib.com>
To: aga-mcm-digest@thekrib.com <aga-mcm-digest@thekrib.com>
Date: Thursday, November 11, 1999 7:13 AM
Subject: MCM - Digest V1 #176
>
>MCM - Digest Thursday, November 11 1999 Volume 01 : Number
176
>
>
>
>In this issue:
>
> Re: MCM - Digest V1 #175
> Re: MCM - Digest V1 #175
> Re: Vote
> Re: Vote
> Re: MCM - Digest V1 #175
> Re: MCM - Digest V1 #175
> Vote; new e-mail address
> Re: Vote; new e-mail address
>
>To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org with
>"unsubscribe aga-mcm" in the body.
>
>Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-mcm
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:52:49 -0500
>From: "Robert P. Cashin" <rcashin@juno.com>
>Subject: Re: MCM - Digest V1 #175
>
>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.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:30:48 -0800 (PST)
>From: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
>Subject: Re: MCM - Digest V1 #175
>
>On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Robert P. Cashin wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>NO.
>
>(My opinion is that we could revisit this issue AFTER non-profit has
>worked out, and we are in better shape as an organization.)
>
>> Second formal call for a vote. How long should I wait before counting
>> the votes?
>
>In this forum, unfortunately I think anything from 2 days up to a week
>might be fair.
>
>(But I'm not sure how this can be considered a formal vote --- how do you
>decide? by averaging the answers? Perhaps a better thing here would be to
>ask everyone how often THEY will take to be able to vote on an issue,
>based on how often they read e-mail. For me, that's 1 day if I'm not on
>vacation.)
>
>> Third formal proposal for a vote. Do we accept Bob McCaw's offer to do
>> our incorporation for free? YES or NO?
>
>YES.
>
>- --
>Erik Olson
>erik at thekrib dot com
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:48:36 -0500 (EST)
>From: amc2@mindspring.com
>Subject: Re: Vote
>
>On 11/10/99 08:30:48 you wrote:
>>
>>On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Robert P. Cashin wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>NO.
>
>My vote on this is NO!
>
>>(My opinion is that we could revisit this issue AFTER non-profit has
>>worked out, and we are in better shape as an organization.)
>>
>>> Second formal call for a vote. How long should I wait before counting
>>> the votes?
>>
>>In this forum, unfortunately I think anything from 2 days up to a week
>>might be fair.
>
>One week should be fair enough, IMO
>
>>(But I'm not sure how this can be considered a formal vote --- how do you
>>decide? by averaging the answers? Perhaps a better thing here would be to
>>ask everyone how often THEY will take to be able to vote on an issue,
>>based on how often they read e-mail. For me, that's 1 day if I'm not on
>>vacation.)
>>
>>> Third formal proposal for a vote. Do we accept Bob McCaw's offer to do
>>> our incorporation for free? YES or NO?
>>
>>YES.
>
>My vote on this is ABSOLUTELY YES! AND WITH THANKS TO BOB McGAW!
>
>Merrill Cohen
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:20:12 -0600
>From: krombhol@teclink.net (Paul Krombholz)
>Subject: Re: Vote
>
>On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Robert P. Cashin wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>NO.
>
>My vote on this is NO!
>
>(My opinion is that we should get our non-profit status worked out _AND_
>let Dave Gomberg get out a few issues of PAM so that we can see what it
>looks like before we subscribe our membership.
>
> Second formal call for a vote. How long should I wait before counting
> the votes?
>
>In this forum, unfortunately I think anything from 2 days up to a week
>might be fair.
>
>One week should be fair enough.
>
>
>
> Third formal proposal for a vote. Do we accept Bob McCaw's offer to
do
> our incorporation for free? YES or NO?
>
> My vote is YES.
>
>
>
>
>Paul Krombholz, in cloudless central Mississippi, with a seemingly
>permanent high pressure area parked over us.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:41:14 -0500
>From: nfrank@mindspring.com
>Subject: Re: MCM - Digest V1 #175
>
>I will try to give my impression of the recent PAM discussions.
>
>Mary said...
> "I think you are making a big mistake in assuming that non-responders
favor going ahead with PAM at this particular time......and
>She said....
>He [bob mccaw] proposes: he will do the incorporation and file for
non-profit status without a fee.
>
>Then David Lass said: he would like BobMc to review any draft document.
>
>First, thanks to Bob for offering to help the AGA. Second, I respect
Mary's concerns. I also agree that we should figure out a good way of
talking on the internet. It is not easy.
>It is also my understanding that we have not yet been asked to have our
'final' vote to go ahead with PAM. If anything, many people have recently
thrown up some red flags, if not demanding that we put on the breaks. It is
my understanding, however, that AGA is continuing its PAM discussions with
Dave Gomberg thru David Lass. (I like Lass's suggestion for legal review. I
hope BobM will be willing). With DL as our representative, I am sure that
the draft agreement will not give away the store. I also suspect that
Gomberg will be flexible.... eventually.... it just takes time to get thru
his single minded exterior. If I am correct... and DL can in fact produce a
PAM agreement which is good for the AGA, then the MC and our legal
consultant can review it and AFTERWARDS we can take the vote that Mary is
looking for. Not knowing how long this process may take, we should allow for
the possiblity that we will need TAG for a while longer. On the other hand,
let's not rule out the possi!
>!
>!
>bility that DL will be quick and we can make a decision before the end of
the year. If we do go with PAM, I suggest that we not call our 4 or more
pages TAG but instead call it something else (like AGA corner).
>
>- --Neil
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:51:15 -0400
>From: David Lass <davidlass@villasunscape.com>
>Subject: Re: MCM - Digest V1 #175
>
>#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.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 23:56:23 -0500
>From: "Mary McCaw" <marymccaw@mediaone.net>
>Subject: Vote; new e-mail address
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>- ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BF2BD7.31122920
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>Bob,
>
>Thank you for your e-mail. I feel relieved that I have been heard.
>
>E-mail voting is new to me, too. We hadn't started doing it on the BAS =
>board until this year. I think it is great that you are asking us to =
>work on procedures.
>
>I can appreciate your position when you said "so far the chair has been =
>a frustrating job for me." I agree that PAM has gotten in the way of =
>our working on other more basic issues.
>
>Question 1 - No
>
>Question 2 - That is a tough one. I think Erik's suggestion of 3 days =
>to one week is about right. After three days, the chair should send a =
>reminder and give the person 4 more days to respond. Then if there is =
>still no response, then, the non-response should be counted as "absent" =
>as David said rather than as an abstention as I suggested. I usually =
>read my e-mail within a day and a half. How long it takes me to respond =
>varies. If I need to think, I may not respond for another day or two.
>
>This week the BAS had an ASAP vote. Our annual auction was this past =
>Sunday, and to book the hall for the same time next year, we were given =
>only a couple of days. It is difficult for me to imagine situations =
>affecting the AGA where an ASAP vote might be necessary, but it is =
>possible. Perhaps in our e-mail voting procedures we should take into =
>account that possibility.
>
>Question 3 - Yes
>
>Please note, especially Erik, that I have a new e-mail address separate =
>from my husband's.
>
>- ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BF2BD7.31122920
>Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
>http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
><META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2014.210" name=3DGENERATOR>
><STYLE></STYLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Bob,</FONT></DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thank you for your e-mail. I feel =
>relieved=20
>that I have been heard.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>E-mail voting is new to me, too. =
>We hadn't=20
>started doing it on the BAS board until this year. I think it is =
>great=20
>that you are asking us to work on procedures.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I can appreciate your position when you =
>said "so=20
>far the chair has been a frustrating job for me." I agree that PAM =
>has=20
>gotten in the way of our working on other more basic =
>issues.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Question 1 - No</FONT></DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Question 2 - That is a tough one. =
>I think=20
>Erik's suggestion of 3 days to one week is about right. After =
>three days,=20
>the chair should send a reminder and give the person 4 more days to=20
>respond. Then if there is still no response, then, the =
>non-response should=20
>be counted as "absent" as David said rather than as an abstention as I=20
>suggested. I usually read my e-mail within a day and a half. =
>How=20
>long it takes me to respond varies. If I need to think, I may not =
>respond=20
>for another day or two.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This week the BAS had an ASAP =
>vote. Our=20
>annual auction was this past Sunday, and to book the hall for the same =
>time next=20
>year, we were given only a couple of days. It is difficult for me =
>to=20
>imagine situations affecting the AGA where an ASAP vote might be =
>necessary, but=20
>it is possible. Perhaps in our e-mail voting procedures we should =
>take=20
>into account that possibility.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Question 3 - Yes</FONT></DIV>
><DIV> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Please note, especially Erik, that I =
>have a new=20
>e-mail address separate from my husband's.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
>
>- ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BF2BD7.31122920--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 22:10:53 -0800 (PST)
>From: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
>Subject: Re: Vote; new e-mail address
>
>Mary, you should resubscribe to the aga-mcm list in the same way you
>subscribed from Bob's account. Send mail to majordomo@thekrib.com with
>"subscribe aga-mcm" in the body. Likewise, Bob should send an
>"unsubscribe aga-mcm" message to the same address. Hopefully that made
>sense!
>
> - Erik
>
>On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Mary McCaw wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Thank you for your e-mail. I feel relieved that I have been heard.
>>
>> E-mail voting is new to me, too. We hadn't started doing it on the BAS
board until this year. I think it is great that you are asking us to work
on procedures.
>>
>> I can appreciate your position when you said "so far the chair has been a
frustrating job for me." I agree that PAM has gotten in the way of our
working on other more basic issues.
>>
>> Question 1 - No
>>
>> Question 2 - That is a tough one. I think Erik's suggestion of 3 days to
one week is about right. After three days, the chair should send a reminder
and give the person 4 more days to respond. Then if there is still no
response, then, the non-response should be counted as "absent" as David said
rather than as an abstention as I suggested. I usually read my e-mail
within a day and a half. How long it takes me to respond varies. If I need
to think, I may not respond for another day or two.
>>
>> This week the BAS had an ASAP vote. Our annual auction was this past
Sunday, and to book the hall for the same time next year, we were given only
a couple of days. It is difficult for me to imagine situations affecting
the AGA where an ASAP vote might be necessary, but it is possible. Perhaps
in our e-mail voting procedures we should take into account that
possibility.
>>
>> Question 3 - Yes
>>
>> Please note, especially Erik, that I have a new e-mail address separate
from my husband's.
>>
>
>- --
>Erik Olson
>erik at thekrib dot com
>
>------------------------------
Hi Bob
On your first call for vote. At the present time I would say NO. I think
we should wait until negotiations are final on our non-profit status. I
think we need TAG for a while longer as I would like to see something from
PAM published so we can see what we are getting.
On the second vote. I think 2 or 3 days is all that is required to
respond.
On the third vote. I think we should accept Bob McCaw's offer with
sincere thanks.
Dorothy Reimer
>End of MCM - Digest V1 #176
>***************************
>