Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:26:59 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Minutes

At 09:48 PM 6/20/05 -0400, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>Elspeth Kovar <ekovar at worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>> to "Capclave '06 Chairfan Elspeth Kovar apologized for the fact
>> that, due to poor health, she's had to miss recent meetings and said
>> that although they were working on the situation it was likely to
>> continue for a while."
>
>Done.
>
>With your permission I'd like to recast it in the passive voice to get
>rid of that floating "they".

I'm guessing that "they" means Elspeth's doctors, so perhaps "her doctors"
would work?  Up to you two of course, just a suggestion.

>mean to single anyone out, or to bludgeon anyone.  I was hoping, both
>at the meeting and on this list, to start a dialogue about whether we
>should move our meeting time to, say, 9:45.  If not everyone who plans

This got a few comments at the meeting...the general consensus seems to be
that the meeting time is fine, that some people show up late on purpose (so
as to miss the meeting and just join the socializing), and that others show
up late due to unavoidable delays (such as traffic) that could happen no
matter when the meeting is scheduled for, so making it start later wouldn't
change much.

I tend to agree with the general consensus on this, and figure that your
comments will correct the problem as much as it can be corrected, but that
if more discussion or other actions are needed, the "new business" part of
a meeting might be the right place to take care of it (if anyone is there
at the time anyway ;-).

>> Your pointed "X person was absent" and nothing more, when there's
>> often been something on the WSFA list about it or said at the
>> meeting, is beginning to go from making a point to making it clear
>> that there is no point in anyone saying that they won't be at or
>> weren't able to attend a meeting.
>
>I'm sorry it comes across that way.  If, say, one of the agenda items
>is Wondercon, I think it's worth mentioning whether the Wondercon
>chairfan was present for the item or not.  But I *don't* think it's
>worth mentioning that they had said they'd be absent due to a nasty
>case of the runs that smells really bad.

How about if it gets recorded as something like, "<whoever> was unable to
be present and sent regrets"...and if they also sent a note to be read at
the meeting (such as a treasurer's report, or a Capclave update), the
contents can be included instead of "regrets".  Would that address
Elspeth's concerns as well as yours?

>> I'm concerned that bringing up tardiness so many times here and in
>> the Journal, and with much the same tone, will have the same numbing
>> effect.
>
>So many times?  When were the previous times?

I'm not sure I could list them, but I was starting to get a feeling similar
to Elspeth's on this, and I was at both of the most recent meetings on
time, so I personally have no reason to feel bludgeoned.  It's a valid
concern, but I think it got raised, and discussed briefly, and it might be
best to just see what happens at the next few meetings and raise the issue
again only if it's still a problem.  IMHO anyway.

>> And as one of the people who usually arrives just around the time
>> that the meeting is starting I needed the initial reminders.  This
>> past Friday there was the excuse of unexpected traffic but in
>> general it's just my difficulty in getting out of the house and
>> I'm sorry if it's been disruptive.
>
>Would it help if the meeting was moved to 9:45?

I think it might be more helpful to make it really clear how far ahead of
meeting time it's OK to arrive.  You said in the list here that up to an
hour ahead of time was fine with both hostesses/hosts, but that's the first
I remember hearing that figure in all the time I've been in WSFA (both this
go around and in the distant past).  It's always been "9pm meeting
time"...so I've always tried to show up pretty close to 9pm...mostly
successfully (give or take 10 minutes).  If folks know it's ok to show up
earlier than that, and if they are critical to the progress of the meeting,
maybe they'll aim for 8:30 or whatever, and if the traffic delays them a
bit, no problem...and if it doesn't, they can get settled and socialize a
bit before the business gets going.  Maybe all those who are critical to
the meeting already know this bit of info, but I, at least, didn't, and
even us non-critical people arriving late can be a minor disruption.

Since not everyone is on this list, it might be worth mentioning this in
the event info on the web page.  That might be worthwhile even if this
subject never comes up again in a meeting.

>Aiming to arrive around 8:45 would preclude all but the worst traffic
>delays preventing arrival by 9:15, but clearly many people have to
>work late, or have other things to do, and can't get out the door
>that early.

If that's the case too often for too many, perhaps a later meeting start
time would work better...but that can get discussed later if necessary, right?

-- Mike B.
--

"Anyone who uses the phrase 'easy as taking candy from a baby' has never tried
 taking candy from a baby."
                                    -- Robin Hood