Re: Thanksgiving, for example

[Robin Cover <robin@isogen.com>]

On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Terry Allen wrote:

> | it further through Sunday noon.  I still intend to have the request in
> | to the board in time for them to consider it Monday.
> 
> Please ask to board to write down the text of any motion they approve
> with respect to the formation of the PAC so that it may be communicated
> to the membership and so that we have a formal legal record of the
> board's action.
> ...
> 
> | I'm also convinced that each committee has to set its own criteria for
> | what constitutes participation.  The commitment I've asked voting
> | members to make in the case of the PAC applies only to the PAC.

This statement from Jon alleviated (considerably) my concern about the
complexity of OASIS committee operations -- since in the back of my mind
I have (mis)recollection about the PAC being used as a model...

> That won't scale (wastes enormous amounts of time and requires the
> attendance of a parliamentarian to get reasonable rules set up), so 
> we'll have to consider that point later on.

I think it could scale, and it should work better than prescribing
a fixed (often overly-complex) parliamentary procedure governing
(recursive) committees.  If a subcommittee has no real power except
as informal input into its parent (sub)committee process, then nothing
is risked, seems to me, in allowing each subcommittee to set up
rules that match the problem space and operational constraints,
as agreed upon by the subcommittee members, per some default (**
very loose**) set of procedures, which the subcomittee is free to
override.

> 
> regards, Terry
>