[H-GEN] agm agenda

Elspeth Thorne elspeth at thorne.id.au
Wed Aug 30 23:53:37 EDT 2006


James Iseppi wrote:

>[ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and     ]
>[ Unix-related topics. Posts from non-subscribed addresses will vanish. ]
>
>Hi All,
>
>On Wed, August 30, 2006 10:42, Clinton Roy wrote:
>  
>
>>I'd like to put my hat in the ring again, but I can only do so if
>>meeting times are ratcheted back such that I can get home before midnight.
>>I think eight hours is more than enough meeting time.
>>
>>How would people feel about turning the network off at ten thirty, and
>>having the meeting closed by eleven?
>>    
>>
>
>I'm one of the people who enjoys the late night meetings and the problem
>is that although I stay later, I often arrive later (between 5 and 8pm)
>making your suggestion of 10:30pm a rather short meeting for me.
>Traditionally HUMBUG meetings have ended quite late. This has allowed
>people time to do things in a relaxed fashion. I don't feel this should
>change while there are members willing and able to stay later and pack up
>at meetings.
>
>  
>
What we're talking about here is a meeting that goes from 3pm to 12am 
being shortened to a 3pm to 10.30pm meeting. So, instead of a 9hr 
meeting we have a 7.5hr meeting. I'm pretty sure that a 7.5hr meeting is 
sufficient for most people's needs, and is sufficient to do things in a 
relaxed fashion, being equivalent to say, an entire workday.


>While it is a requirement for there to always be an exec member present at
>a meeting, perhaps only those members willing to stay and pack up
>occasionally should consider nominating. I attend almost every meeting and
>often stay quite late and am quite happy to pack up. There is also no
>reason that every exec member needs to pack up, as long as it is made
>clear before they join the exec.
>
>  
>
Are you also willing to get there at 3pm on the following meeting to set 
up, seeing as you are in possession of the equipment? If so, why do 
object you to shortening the meeting, since in another email, you have 
stated that a 5hr meeting is suffcient, and it would, at the proposed 
shorter length, then be a 7.5hr meeting? Maintaining the length of your 
personal humbug experience is certainly within your power.

>I'm tired of hearing how we need to close up the meetings earlier. If you
>are unable to fulfil the roles of an exec member you either need to
>clearly state this when being elected as other exec members have
>previously done or think very carefully about whether you should run.
>David Seikel has packed up almost every meeting within the past twelve
>months and I know this because I'm frequently there helping him. I'm happy
>to be nominated for election to the exec again if this will help.
>  
>
Can you also arrive early? There's currently a dual requirement there, 
not only for set up, but for exec meetings, which are traditionally held 
either at the start or just before the humbug meetings. You've stated 
previously that your usual arrival time is late, much later than the 
arrival time of many members (from personal observation). This obviously 
disqualifies you from being able to fufil exec duties, unless you are 
willing to arrive early ... and see above comment about subsequent 
length of meeting.

>To other members who have expressed a desire for earlier meeting closes
>may I ask why? Is there anyone actually stopping you leaving earlier? Or
>is it simply that you enjoy the meetings so much that the only way you'll
>leave is by being kicked out? Sure, if there is no one at a meeting it
>should be closed. However, it has often been my experience that there are
>regularly people actively doing stuff beyond midnight.
>
>  
>
I don't believe it's a desire (except on the part of people wishing to 
run for exec and be assured that their responsibilities will be 
reasonable) so much as a non-objection. Eg, people don't mind if the 
meeting closes down early, as distinct from people wanting to be kicked 
out. Except for a few people, there's no significant virtue in having 
the formal meeting extend further - except and unless they are working 
on a thorny problem, in which case they either could have arrived 
earlier or need a break anyway.

I, personally, would not be willing to run for exec, for two reasons: I 
find it difficult to get anywhere on a saturday before 5pm due to 
laziness, and I am occasionaly unfit to drive late at night due to 
chronic insomnia. I have it much easier than most married people who 
attend humbug do; my husband attends also, so there isn't a 
relationship-maintenence issue there, which I believe has limited 
late-night participation for exec members in the past, not unreasonably 
in my opinion. I would certainly object to my husband taking off for 
10hrs or so on one of the two days a week I can spend extended amounts 
of time with him, especially if the timing of those 10 hours meant that 
I would probably also lose most of the following day as well. Once every 
few months ... well, maybe. Once a fortnight? You've got to be joking.

Essentially, there are a highly limited number of people who have the 
free time and sleep habits sufficient to run 9hr meetings, even once 
every 2.5months. Anyone with children is out; anyone who works on 
saturdays or sunday mornings is out; anyone who has anything on of a 
sunday morning is out; anyone who has anything on of a saturday beyond 
about 2pm is out; a lot of nonsingle people are out; etc. If, by pulling 
back the meeting time by a couple of hours, to a normal workday length, 
we can have more exec members who are willing to pack up and set up, 
then in my opinion, that's got to be a good thing.

Regards,

Elspeth.






More information about the General mailing list