[H-GEN] agm agenda

James Iseppi lists at iseppi.org
Thu Aug 31 01:21:49 EDT 2006


Hi All,

On Thu, August 31, 2006 13:53, Elspeth Thorne wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but the issue is that different people do arrive at different times.
Some arrive at 3pm, others arrive later. This suggestion is unlikely to
affect those members arriving earlier, but would easily affect anyone
arriving later. I just think there are better ways to deal with this issue
than to shorten the meeting.

> 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.

> 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.

I'm happy to arrive earlier and setup. However, I would try to organise an
exchange of equipment with another exec member during the fortnight before
the next meeting (as has been done by previous executives). A fortnight
gives quite a bit of time to organise and complete any equipment
exchanges, and I would consider this one of the commitments of being on
the exec.

> 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.

Ok, fair enough, but clearly the definition of reasonable differs between
different groups of people. I'm aware that David on the current exec
doesn't mind late meetings, and assuming I were elected, I don't mind
staying later either. I'm sure David and I are not the only 2 people who
stay later, as i frequently see other members attending up to and beyond
midnight.

To the suggestion of arriving earlier, sometimes this may not be possible
for some members. It may be because of other commitments or because they
"find it difficult to get anywhere on a saturday before 5pm due to
laziness". This is why I feel the club should try to be as inclusive as
possible, and not simply favour the members that prefer to arrive and
leave early.

> 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.

That assumes that a single exec member needs to be in attendance at the
meeting for the entire night. In fact if an exec member only wanted to
spend a few hours at the meeting there is nothing stopping them from doing
that, as long as they organise for another exec member to arrive before
they leave. With five people on the exec I can't imagine it being too much
of a problem.

> 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.

Again, there is no reason for a single exec member to attend for 9 hours
unless they choose to. I think that as long as people's other commitments
and availability is clear when they are elected most people would be able
to serve on the exec and still take on their share of the workload. I also
feel that the suggestions of both Russell Stuart and Robert Brockway
should be investigated as these provide a larger pool of people who could
manage meetings and pack up.

Thanks
James





More information about the General mailing list