Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05)/Pt IV

This is a continuation of Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05) Pt. III, Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05) Pt II and Wikipedia:AMA IRC Meeting log (1-30-05).

[16:30] <alex756> I don't think this body should take over any of the role of the Coordinator, they should complement it.
[16:30] <Metasquares> We can have a chair that is responsible for communication between the coordinator and the committee, but the question is whether this has any benefit over the coordinator simply serving on the committee directly.
[16:31] <Wally|AMAFK> What Metasquares mentioned was my thought exactly.
[16:31] <alex756> Right now the Coordinator does not have anyone to discuss issues with. A body will give that some momentum.
[16:31] <Wally|AMAFK> But I think the Coordinator should be more about action, and the board about discussion.
[16:31] <alex756> The meetings of the body should be open to the membership.
[16:31] <Wally|AMAFK> Hence a conduit.
[16:31] <Wally|AMAFK> We've never said they should be closed.
[16:32] <alex756> I think that the Coordinator can appoint members to be his deputies to make things happen, they don't necessarily have to be members of this body.
[16:32] <Wally|AMAFK> But elected members have priority and final say on that issue.
[16:32] <Metasquares> They should definitely be open to the membership
[16:32] <Wally|AMAFK> Alex, the Coordinator either works with this body or doesn't.
[16:32] <Wally|AMAFK> If he does, he goes to the body for any assistance he needs.
[16:32] <alex756> Once again, we have no bylaws, the body is not being given any power, they are merely a consulative body.
[16:32] <Wally|AMAFK> Well, I disagree that they should be merely consultative.
[16:33] <alex756> Why, why shouldn't the coordinator have the ability to ask members to participate in the activities of the association, that is absurd if the Coordinator can't do that if necessary.
[16:33] <alex756> It is like you are creating an organization with an organization, some kind of exclusive club.
[16:33] <Wally|AMAFK> The Coordinator should have to go through the group.
[16:33] <Wally|AMAFK> Is my point.
[16:33] <alex756> We have no constitution.
[16:33] <Wally|AMAFK> The Coordinator, as it stands, is too close to being a dictator.
[16:33] <Wally|AMAFK> Especially if we are to evolve into a more proactive organization.
[16:34] <alex756> We have no authority whatsoever to discuss creating bodies with power, without a constitutional convention.
[16:34] <alex756> That is ridiculous!
[16:34] <Wally|AMAFK> It is not.
[16:34] <alex756> There is no dictator?
[16:34] <Wally|AMAFK> And we are merely discussing proposals to offer to a member.
[16:34] <Metasquares> But a dictator without any power over the organization. The coordinator role is an acknowledgement of respect, rather than a power role
[16:34] <Wally|AMAFK> to members, rather.
[16:34] <alex756> What am I dictating, tell me?
[16:34] <Wally|AMAFK> Whoa, back this train up. I'm not calling you one.
[16:34] <Wally|AMAFK> Absolutely not.
[16:35] <Wally|AMAFK> I am saying the authority vested in the Coordinator is complete.
[16:35] <Wally|AMAFK> And should not be.
[16:35] <alex756> I am the Coordinator, you just said that "the Coordinator, as it stands, is too close to being a dictator."
[16:35] <Wally|AMAFK> I was referring to the office.
[16:35] <alex756> There is NO authority vested in the Coordinator.
[16:35] <alex756> It is just a job, like an administrator.
[16:35] <alex756> It is like being a cleaning man, really.
[16:35] <Wally|AMAFK> An administrator inherently carries authority.
[16:36] <alex756> I don't think there is much authority.
[16:36] <Wally|AMAFK> Okay, this is not getting far. I am going to prepare two proposals.
[16:36] <alex756> I can't tell anyone to do anything.
[16:36] <Wally|AMAFK> One for a Coordinator as part of a board, one as a Coordinator seperate from a board.
[16:36] <alex756> No. you prepare your proposal, and I will prepare my own proposal.
[16:36] <Wally|AMAFK> I have two proposals, is my point.
[16:37] <Wally|AMAFK> That's why I merely wanted you both to decide which of my two ideas you preferred.
[16:37] <alex756> No your proposal was that the Coordinator be part of the board, my proposal was that the board be their to help the Coordinator.
[16:37] <alex756> I never said the Coordinator was separate. The Coordinator is part of an association, not separate.
[16:38] <Wally|AMAFK> All right, then it will be that.
[16:38] <alex756> This is the whole problem, you people do not seem to realize that the Coordinator was put their for your benefit, to make things happen if the members wanted it to happen, you think it is dictatorial? No one ever said that before.
[16:38] <Wally|AMAFK> "You people"?
[16:38] <alex756> Yes, all you AMA members.
[16:38] <Wally|AMAFK> You're taking a little too much personal offense, I feel.
[16:39] <alex756> You want the Coordinator to be separate, I think I can call the members, "You people".
[16:39] <Wally|AMAFK> You don't, and you're proving my point.
[16:39] <Metasquares> I already said that the coordinator is an office of respect, rather than power
[16:39] <alex756> Well, I just feel like the members are complaining that nothing is happening.
[16:39] <Wally|AMAFK> Nothing is happening.
[16:39] <alex756> That is because the members are apathetic.
[16:39] <Wally|AMAFK> And because the Coordinator has no power and nothing to do.
[16:40] <alex756> You can bring a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
[16:40] <alex756> It should not be about power, but about cooperation.
[16:40] <Wally|AMAFK> No, but you can choose whether the water's brown or blue.
[16:40] <alex756> That is what the word "association" implies.
[16:40] <Wally|AMAFK> Like I said, we're heading nowhere. We'll each prepare proposals, and the members can vote.
[16:40] <Wally|AMAFK> Should we set a timetable to hold voting on our respective ideas?
[16:40] <alex756> I don't think we should have power, we should have people who are interested in helping. That is what volunteerism is all about.
[16:41] <Metasquares> This is an organization built on top of a wiki. Like Wikipedia, the driving force behind the organization is going to come from individual members rather than anyone forcing anyone else to do something
[16:41] <alex756> I have already put up the notice for the next meeting on February 12 at 17:00 UTC.
[16:42] <Wally|AMAFK> No, I really think another meeting is unnecessary.
[16:42] <Wally|AMAFK> We have two proposals available.
[16:42] <alex756> Yes, and that I is why I think Wally's idea is that a good one.
[16:42] <Wally|AMAFK> We ought to present them and have a group vote upon them.
[16:42] <alex756> I don't think so, Wally, so far we have had about five or six members participate in these meetings.
[16:43] <Wally|AMAFK> And we're not going to have more.
[16:43] <alex756> We still have not gotten through the agenda that was set last time, nor have we discussed the modalities of passing any resolutions.
[16:43] <Wally|AMAFK> Alex, it almost feels to me like you're stalling.
[16:43] <alex756> We posted notices one week ago that we were going to discuss these things, we have just gotten started.
[16:43] <alex756> I think that by doing that we are bound, in good faith and fair dealing, to go ahead with those discussions.
[16:43] <Wally|AMAFK> And why are we waiting until the 12th to meet?
[16:43] <Wally|AMAFK> And why on a Wednesday?
[16:44] <alex756> Your proposals and my proposals should be discussed before they are made into formal motions.
[16:44] <Wally|AMAFK> They have been discussed, for three hours.
[16:44] <Wally|AMAFK> I must insist we present them and have a vote.
[16:44] <alex756> Wednesday? Feb. 12 is a Saturday.
[16:44] <Wally|AMAFK> I'm afraid it's not.
[16:44] <alex756> I don't think we have enough people to change the rules.
[16:44] <Wally|AMAFK> Today is 30 January.
[16:45] <Wally|AMAFK> There are no rules, you said.
[16:45] <Wally|AMAFK> So we present it for a vote.
[16:45] <Metasquares> I think we'd get a wider audience on a talk page than in another meeting
[16:45] <Wally|AMAFK> That must be the next step.
[16:45] <Wally|AMAFK> I agree, Meta.
[16:45] <alex756> We made the rules the last time. We adopted an agenda and then we put that on a talk page.
[16:46] <alex756> We cannot now, in good faith, make up a rule that the three of us can change the procedure that was already announced publicly.
[16:46] <alex756> That does not seem like good faith and fair dealing to me.
[16:46] <alex756> We don't need to be in a rush. We need more input.
[16:46] <Wally|AMAFK> This is silly.
[16:46] <Wally|AMAFK> The over-arching object of this is to solve problems.
[16:46] <alex756> If all the members have a chance to give input and then don't then they cannot complaint.
[16:46] <Metasquares> Perhaps we can present the proposals on the wiki, then discuss them in the next meeting after everyone's had a chance to read them?
[16:46] <alex756> It is not silly, it is called due process.
[16:46] <Wally|AMAFK> Which is why we post it and offer input.
[16:47] <alex756> What is wrong with another meeting. Are you afraid people are going to disagree with your proposals?
[16:47] <Wally|AMAFK> There is no due process, and you could have enforced the "agenda" at the beginning of the meeting.
[16:47] <alex756> So far these meetings have useful.
[16:47] <Wally|AMAFK> No, I'm not. What are you afraid of?
[16:47] <Wally|AMAFK> Why are you afraid of action?
[16:47] <Wally|AMAFK> And I might add the more formal we've been the worse these have worked.
[16:47] <alex756> I am afraid of action before all the members have given their input, yes.
[16:47] <Wally|AMAFK> We had the most progress when we abandoned formality.
[16:48] <Wally|AMAFK> Hence why we post these on the boards.
[16:48] <alex756> So far we have had two meetings, I think we have discussed valuable things at both meetings.
[16:48] <Wally|AMAFK> Allow members there a chance to offer input and changes.
[16:48] <alex756> I do not see a contradiction.
[16:48] <Wally|AMAFK> And then vote after a period of, say, one week.
[16:48] <alex756> You are trying to capture the discussion process.
[16:48] <Wally|AMAFK> I am not, and I resent that accusation.
[16:48] <Wally|AMAFK> I have participated in good faith.
[16:48] <alex756> I do not see how three people can decide for another 27 who are not here.
[16:48] <Wally|AMAFK> Are you not listening to me?
[16:48] <Metasquares> Both of you need to calm down... you're at each other's throats
[16:48] <alex756> No, I think you are trying to capture it.
[16:49] <Wally|AMAFK> This is why we post on the boards.
[16:49] <Wally|AMAFK> And I think you are resisting an election.
[16:49] <alex756> We already decided to have a meeting structure, now we must follow through with it.
[16:49] <Wally|AMAFK> We have already abandoned that structure today.
[16:49] <alex756> I am not resisting anything, I have already offered to resign. You want me to resign?
[16:49] <alex756> We never called the meeting to order in fact.
[16:49] <Wally|AMAFK> This is unbelievable.
[16:50] <Metasquares> We can have the proposals on a talk page, where members can post comments or revisions, then we can discuss it in more depth in a meeting, then finally bring it to a vote
[16:50] <alex756> As the Chair of the first meeting I have adjourned the second meeting to Feb. 12. It is a Saturday and I am doing that so more people can participatel.
[16:50] <Wally|AMAFK> This is exactly what I ask, Meta.
[16:50] <Wally|AMAFK> February 12th is a Wednesday.
[16:50] <alex756> You are being unbeleivable. You call this democracy?
[16:50] <Wally|AMAFK> No one comes to the meetings. I'm asking these proposals be posted for comment and then a vote.
[16:51] <alex756> Februay 9, 2005 is a Wednesday.
[16:51] <Metasquares> The vote wouldn't be held in IRC, of course. It'd be on the wiki, to ensure that everyone who is going to vote will participate
[16:51] <Wally|AMAFK> Meta, can you comment on this date thing?
[16:51] <alex756> What do you mean no one comes to these meetings, Are you now calling me, Metasquares, Anthere and Sam Spade no one?
[16:51] <Wally|AMAFK> I'm looking at two calendars here, and 9 February is a Wednesday.
[16:51] <Metasquares> Otherwise, what happens if we have 5 people at the next meeting too?
[16:51] <Wally|AMAFK> Of course not.
[16:51] <Wally|AMAFK> But you want member participation.
[16:51] <Wally|AMAFK> We have 30, 5 come.
[16:51] <Wally|AMAFK> That is 1/6.
[16:52] <Wally|AMAFK> Not enough.
[16:52] <Wally|AMAFK> I want full participation.
[16:52] <Wally|AMAFK> And I want action.
[16:52] <alex756> And maybe they will all show up at the third meeting.
[16:52] <Wally|AMAFK> A discussion and a vote.
[16:52] <Wally|AMAFK> Why do you resist this?
[16:52] <Wally|AMAFK> Why are you so afraid of a discussion and a vote on the boards?
[16:52] <alex756> Two weeks discussion, we can make motions at the next meeting and then, if there is no discussion there can be a vote.
[16:52] <Metasquares> Does the meeting absolutely have to be on a Wednesday?
[16:53] <Wally|AMAFK> I want a full vote on the AMA boards.
[16:53] <alex756> FEBRUARY 12 is a SATURDAY.
[16:53] <Metasquares> Ah. Wally said the 9th
[16:53] <Wally|AMAFK> With all members given the opportunity, not just those present at this meeting.
[16:53] <alex756> No one is disagreeing about a vote on the AMA pages.
[16:53] <alex756> WALLY is trying to disrupt this process, can't you see that?
[16:53] <Wally|AMAFK> I want comment there, too.
[16:53] <Wally|AMAFK> How?
[16:53] <Wally|AMAFK> And you were right about the date.
[16:53] <Wally|AMAFK> I, in fact, was looking at the wrong calendar.
[16:53] <Wally|AMAFK> My apologies.
[16:53] <Metasquares> The 12th is fine if it's a Saturday
[16:54] <Wally|AMAFK> And how am I disrupting this process?
[16:54] <Wally|AMAFK> I want a board discussion and a vote.
[16:54] <Wally|AMAFK> That allows maximum participation.
[16:54] <Wally|AMAFK> I'll summon people to comment myself.
[16:54] <Wally|AMAFK> I want the comment.
[16:54] <Wally|AMAFK> We've had two meetings, neither of which have been well-attended.
[16:54] <Wally|AMAFK> The only way to expand comment is to bring this on our boards.
[16:54] <Wally|AMAFK> A week of debate and a vote.
[16:55] <Wally|AMAFK> I think this is absolutely in the best interests of the advocates and the AMA.
[16:55] <alex756> You fail to recognize my authority as the Chair and as the Coordinator to organize this process in a fair and democratic fashion. You make misstatements of fact about simple things like dates and you are telling me that even though I was made chair of these meetings that I cannot adjourn the meeting and call another one. This is not democratic.
[16:55] <Wally|AMAFK> You just said before that you don't have power.
[16:55] <Wally|AMAFK> And you said you never convened this meeting.
[16:55] <Wally|AMAFK> So how could you adjourn it?
[16:55] <Wally|AMAFK> And why are you so afraid of public participation in a more open setting?
[16:56] <alex756> I do not know why members have not come here. So far we have three proposals, and an agenda for seven items.
[16:56] <Wally|AMAFK> What is not democratic about a popular, open vote?
[16:56] <alex756> No one has commented on the agenda.
[16:56] <alex756> It has only been a week.
[16:56] <alex756> You are trying to rush your proposal through.
[16:56] <Wally|AMAFK> This is silly. I am posting my proposal tonight at 0500 UTC.
[16:56] <Metasquares> Wally just stated how he wants the matter to proceed (that is, board discussion, meeting, vote). Alex, how do you have the process envisioned?
[16:56] <alex756> I do not think that is fair to the other members.
[16:56] <Wally|AMAFK> I will ask for comment and ask an unlimited period for it.
[16:57] <Wally|AMAFK> How is it unfair?
[16:57] <alex756> You are taking over the organization.
[16:57] <alex756> You are a dictator.
[16:57] <alex756> How dare you call me a dictator and do it yourself.
[16:57] <Metasquares> I'm just trying to figure out where you both stand between the accusations being flung around
[16:57] <Wally|AMAFK> I was not calling you a dictator.
[16:57] <Wally|AMAFK> And I am not.
[16:57] <Wally|AMAFK> And I do not.
[16:57] <Wally|AMAFK> And I will not.
[16:57] <alex756> You tell me that February 12 is a Wednesday?
[16:57] <alex756> How many times?
[16:57] <Wally|AMAFK> I apologized,
[16:57] <Wally|AMAFK> apologized.*
[16:58] <alex756> What do you think I am an idiot?
[16:58] <Wally|AMAFK> I had a January calendar up and didn't notice.
[16:58] <Wally|AMAFK> And I'm sorry for the mistake.
[16:58] <Wally|AMAFK> I made a mistake.
[16:58] <Wally|AMAFK> In January, the 12th was a Wednesday, and I made an error, and I'm sorry.
[16:58] <alex756> I am just suggesting that we need to give the members time to comment. Michael Snow specifically asked if a meeting can be held on Saturday.
[16:58] <alex756> He has done a lot of work on AMA related things on the Signpost.
[16:58] <Wally|AMAFK> That is what I ask, too; a week on the boards for comment.
[16:58] <alex756> I think he is someone whose input should be sought.
[16:58] <Wally|AMAFK> Two weeks, if you want.
[16:58] <Metasquares> Alright, so Feb. 12 is a Saturday. It's an honest mistake, and Wally has apologized
[16:59] <Wally|AMAFK> Have a month!
[16:59] <Wally|AMAFK> I would like him to comment, on the boards.
[16:59] <alex756> Also Ed Poor might also come.
[16:59] <alex756> These are all people who can make suggestions.
[16:59] <Wally|AMAFK> It feels to me like you're trying to call in reinforcements.
[16:59] <Metasquares> So you both seem to be proposing the same thing: Time on the wiki to comment, then another meeting, then a vote
[16:59] <alex756> An IRC meeting gives one a sense of participation.
[16:59] <Wally|AMAFK> Why, I don't know.
[16:59] <Wally|AMAFK> Posting a comment does, too!
[16:59] <Wally|AMAFK> Offering suggestions - I'm asking in order to change it and make it better.
[17:00] <alex756> No one is posting comments, Anthere said she wasn't going to participate in these IRC meetings, I got her to join in because she was logged on to #Wikipedia.
[17:00] <Metasquares> And I've already brought that up as a possibility about an hour ago, so I'm obviously in agreement :)
[17:00] <alex756> We need to have as MUCH participation as possible. That is why we called IRC meetings NO ONE was posting anything.
[17:00] <Wally|AMAFK> I will personally message every member every day if that is what it takes.
[17:00] <Wally|AMAFK> My hand to God.
[17:01] <alex756> The point is not to RUSH democracy.
[17:01] <Wally|AMAFK> But there must be on-board debate.
[17:01] <Wally|AMAFK> And there must be a vote.
[17:01] <alex756> The debate can take place everywhere.
[17:01] <Wally|AMAFK> The point is also not to slow down democracy.
[17:01] <Wally|AMAFK> No, it can't.
[17:01] <Wally|AMAFK> It must be on the boards.
[17:01] <alex756> We have not even figured out how to have the vote yet.
[17:01] <Wally|AMAFK> That way time is not a factor.
[17:01] <Wally|AMAFK> Then we have a week to do so.
[17:01] <Wally|AMAFK> On boards, people don't need to come together at a specific time.
[17:01] <Wally|AMAFK> They can post suggestions at their leisure.
[17:01] <Wally|AMAFK> And they can be acted upon in the same way.
[17:02] <Wally|AMAFK> And it's easier for all members to participate.
[17:02] <alex756> But making such suggestions and discussing them here are not the same thing.
[17:02] <alex756> I disagree with you again.
[17:02] <alex756> It is not easier for them to participate.
[17:02] <Wally|AMAFK> Then we will collect the suggestions, meet on Saturday, and then vote starting Monday.
[17:02] <Wally|AMAFK> Can you agree to that?
[17:02] <alex756> More people have participated on these IRC meetings than on the boards.
[17:02] <Wally|AMAFK> A week of board debate, a final meeting on the proposed structure, and then a vote?
[17:02] <Wally|AMAFK> Can you agree to this?
[17:02] <alex756> There is an obvious falacy in your observations.
[17:03] <Wally|AMAFK> Can you agree?
[17:03] <Wally|AMAFK> Yes or no?
[17:03] <alex756> Wally, I am not agreeing to something that is just betweeen you and me. THAT IS NOT DEMOCRACY.
[17:03] <alex756> Don't you understand that?
[17:03] <Wally|AMAFK> Metasquares - can you agree to this? Do you think it's fair?
[17:03] <alex756> Two people or even three people out of 30 changing all the rules when they see fit is a DICTATORSHIP.
[17:03] <Wally|AMAFK> Do you think that leaves ample time for discussion?
[17:03] <Metasquares> What we're agreeing to is how to set up a vote in such a way that the largest group of people possible participates
[17:04] <alex756> We already posted the last meeting's discussion.
[17:04] <alex756> We will post this meeting's discussion.
[17:04] <Wally|AMAFK> Is it not fair?
[17:04] <Wally|AMAFK> Does it not leave opportunity to comment?
[17:04] <Wally|AMAFK> Can I get my bloody comment, please?
[17:04] <alex756> You can make as many proposals as you like Wally AND ALL OTHER MEMBERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MAKE PROPOSALS TOO.
[17:04] <Wally|AMAFK> I'm begging you to let me get comment on ALL proposals.
[17:04] <Metasquares> Yes, Wally, I agree.
[17:04] <Wally|AMAFK> I want comment on yours, too.
[17:05] <alex756> We are not talking about limiting any of your proposals. Just don't start putting words into other people's mouths.
[17:05] <alex756> I think this is what Sam is really worried about and maybe I am beginning to agree with him, this committee thing is a bad idea.
[17:05] <Wally|AMAFK> We are talking about not allowing debate.
[17:05] <Wally|AMAFK> Why?
[17:05] <Wally|AMAFK> Because someone disagrees with you?
[17:05] <alex756> People just think that they have power because they show up one day.
[17:05] <Wally|AMAFK> Because someone wants on-board debate?
[17:06] <Wally|AMAFK> Because I'm not a member of the old boys' club?
[17:06] <alex756> I am looking for real discussion, not you capturing the proposal process.
[17:06] <Wally|AMAFK> Please tell me.
[17:06] <Metasquares> On-board debate will allow people to post their own solutions
[17:06] <Wally|AMAFK> How am I capturing it?
[17:06] <Wally|AMAFK> I'm begging to be allowed to get debate.
[17:06] <Metasquares> We can even have a suggestion period, in which no discussion of existing proposals takes place, but new proposals can be made
[17:06] <alex756> By trying to get me to agree with you when there is no one else at this meeting and ignore what was discussed at the previous meeting.
[17:06] <Wally|AMAFK> I want a third meeting, and I've asked for one after on-board debate, to review suggestions.
[17:06] <Wally|AMAFK> Is Metasquares no one else?
[17:06] <alex756> You can ask for that at the next meetings.
[17:07] <alex756> You know what I mean Wally, there is no one else at the meeting than the three of us.
[17:07] <alex756> It is not fair to the other members.
[17:07] <alex756> Can't you see that?
[17:07] <alex756> I am just trying to be fair. I am not a dictator.
[17:07] <Wally|AMAFK> Can't you see that allowing them input is fair?
[17:07] <alex756> I am a coordinator.
[17:07] <Wally|AMAFK> They're not coming to these meetings, so we put it on the boards.
[17:07] <Wally|AMAFK> Then, sir, act like one.
[17:07] <Wally|AMAFK> Coordinate discussion.
[17:07] <Wally|AMAFK> Don't stifle it.
[17:08] <alex756> You are asking me to create a procedure. I refuse to create more of a procedure than we have already created.
[17:08] <Wally|AMAFK> A board discussion is reasonable.
[17:08] <Wally|AMAFK> It is democratic.
[17:08] <Wally|AMAFK> It is practical.
[17:08] <Wally|AMAFK> It is fair.
[17:08] <alex756> You can discuss anything you want.
[17:08] <Metasquares> And then have another meeting, as you suggested, alex, where we can have another discussion
[17:08] <Wally|AMAFK> Which I am happy to agree with.
[17:08] <Wally|AMAFK> And will wholeheartedly engage in.
[17:08] <Metasquares> We can then put the finalized proposals up for a vote on board, irc, or both
[17:08] <Wally|AMAFK> That is all I ask.
[17:08] <alex756> Just don't start putting words into other people's mouths, Wally, just post your proposals and leave it at that.
[17:09] <Wally|AMAFK> Alex, I do not believe this.
[17:09] <alex756> There was a place for you to put up this proposal for a whole week, if you had done that before things might have been different now.
[17:09] <alex756> But you did not.
[17:09] <Wally|AMAFK> I wanted to wait for a second meeting.
[17:09] <Wally|AMAFK> To have more IRC discussion, before starting board discussion.
[17:10] <Wally|AMAFK> I don't want power. I want discourse. I want a solution.
[17:10] <alex756> Right, I put up a page for comments, you don't comment, then come to the meeting and say, you don't want things discussed at the meeting but on the boards?
[17:10] <Wally|AMAFK> Talking between four people into next year will allow for none of these.
[17:10] <Wally|AMAFK> I say I want them discussed on the boards and THEN at a meeting.
[17:10] <alex756> It makes me feel like the work I am doing as Coordinator is really being laughed at.
[17:10] <Wally|AMAFK> Didn't you read? Are you listening to me?
[17:10] <Metasquares> That is also what I am proposing
[17:10] <Wally|AMAFK> And there it is.
[17:11] <Metasquares> And if that isn't sufficient, we can even have another period of discussion on the boards following the meeting
[17:11] <Wally|AMAFK> Alex, I must formally request the opening of an on-board discussion in the run-up to our next meeting, the meeting itself (which, for the record, I'll not be able to attend, and to which I still do not object) and then a follow-on vote.
[17:11] <alex756> I have to get going. I am adjourning the meeting and it will reconvene in two weeks time on Saturday as posted on the AMA page at which point all the suggested topics on the suggested topics page will be discussed as well as the agenda from the last meeting and the proposal regarding adopting any discussions at these meetings.
[17:12] <alex756> I declare this meeting adjourned. Thank you all for your participation.
[17:12] <Metasquares> It sounds like the meeting was inconclusive after all of this. I hope we'll be able to reach a decision at the next one.
[17:14] * alex756 is now known as alex756-away
[17:32] * Metasquares has left #ama