Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 23:40:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl at KeithLynch.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Minutes

Mike Bartman wrote:

> 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 ;-).

New business *was* when I brought it up.

> 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?

That's exactly what I have been doing.  If they email me a report, I
read it at the meeting, and then include it in the minutes.

I haven't bothered to mention in the minutes whether someone simply
said they wouldn't be there.  Do you think I should?

> 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.

I agree completely, and didn't intend to mention it again.

> I think it might be more helpful to make it really clear how far
> ahead of meeting time it's OK to arrive.

Good point.  I'll ask that our hosts or hostesses do so at the next
meeting at each location.

> Since not everyone is on this list, it might be worth mentioning
> this in the event info on the web page.

Already fixed.  The directions to the Gillilands', which I put online
on Saturday, suggest arriving between 8:30 and 9:00.  I had though the
directions to the Madigans' said the same, but I see they don't.  I'll
have to fix that.

>> 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?

Right.  That's what I was clumsily trying to ask on Friday -- whether
people could arrive earlier, or were having to work late.  And if the
latter is the case, whether a later start time wouldn't make the
meetings shorter and more efficient.