Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 05:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Deidre McLaughlin <dcmcl333 at yahoo.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Minutes
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

you mean I skipped a meeting and you talked about me!
Now I will have to read the minutes so see what she
said.

--- "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl at KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> This is a combined reply to all comments about
> October's minutes.
>
> Elspeth Kovar wrote:
>
> > "Keith asked if there would be something in City
> Paper. Elspeth said
> > yes."  I think that I chimed in as Sam Lubell was
> talking, ...
>
> It was Sam who said it.  Thanks.  Fixed.
>
> > "Elspeth said another concern was the force
> majeure or act-of-God
> > clause, which says that under some circumstances
> the hotel can
> > cancel and not reimburse us."
>
> > I believe that I also said that I'd gotten it
> written two way:
> > if various things happen, such a terrorist attack
> shuts down
> > transportation, that makes it impossible for us to
> hold the
> > convention we don't own them anything.  A minor
> correction but
> > not getting clauses like that so they both go both
> ways is a
> > standard mistake.
>
> I'm pleased that that was in the contract.  But you
> didn't say it
> during the meeting.
>
> > "Two Worldcon bids are hosting parties. The Kansas
> City bid withdrew
> > their plans for a party. Barry said KC had had
> three people coming."
> > You might want to put in a note that I checked the
> housing list
> > afterwards and some rather old email -- the more
> recent things are
> > filed in a separate folder -- and they'd said they
> were coming so
> > long ago that I'd forgotten that they'd replied.
> So we have all
> > three of the current Worldcon bids.  At our little
> convention.
>
> Fixed.
>
> > I think that it's worth noting that Lee later said
> that since a
> > number of people would be missing Third Friday
> because of Scott's
> > wedding she'd like to ask if the vote could be
> postponed.
>
> That was already in there.  Perhaps it shouldn't
> have been in the
> announcements section, but that's when she said it.
> It's moot now,
> anyway.
>
> > I don't want Deirdre reading the minutes and
> wondering who the heck
> > Elspeth is and why she's asking about her.
>
> Too late.  Deirdre was already on the email list
> when you posted
> the above.
>
> > "Elspeth's cat Tribble has diabetes. She spent
> nearly all day either
> > at the vets or at the con hotel."
> > Sorry, it's Fribble ...
>
> Fixed.
>
> > ... And *she* didn't have to spend all day at the
> con hotel, the
> > lucky beast.
>
> I thought it was clear that "she" meant you, not
> your cat.  Fixed anyway.
>
> "Mike B." wrote:
>
> > I think it was the *other* Judy...
>
> Fixed.
>
> > The Boulder Pledge:  "Under no circumstances will
> I ever purchase
> > anything offered to me as the result of an
> unsolicited email
> > message. ...
>
> That will work well at wiping out spam if 100% of
> the people on the
> net follow it.  Unfortunately, only a mere 99.99999%
> do, so it's
> pretty much useless.
>
> Nicki Lynch wrote:
>
> > I'm very disturbed by making remarks, which one is
> lead to believe
> > to be hateful about another member, attributed to
> "anonymous."  It
> > makes the minutes inaccurate ...
>
> Rich Lynch wrote:
>
> > I absolutely agree.  WSFA meetings are public
> events, and I object
> > to any censoring of the minutes.
>
> It's a balancing act between keeping the record
> accurate and complete,
> and protecting privacy.  For instance the club voted
> that the names
> of the companies that owe our World Fantasy Con will
> not go in the
> minutes.  And just three days ago, I got the
> following email:
>
>   Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
>   From: [redacted]
>   Subject: [WSFA] WSFA journal
>
>   Keith - Can you remove my name from the online
> WSFA journal?
>   I'm currently being stalked by an ex-girlfriend,
> who is trying
>   to find out the full name of my current
> girlfriend, and the only
>   place that our names are online together is in the
> October WSFA
>   journal.  If she finds it, she'll then be able to
> find out all
>   sorts of things about [redacted] that I'd rather
> she didn't.
>   I'd really really like to have my name removed
> from it
>   as soon as possible - by the end of the day if
> possible.
>
>   - [redacted]
>
> The names appeared in the meeting minutes.  (Instead
> of deleting the
> name I altered it slightly in a way that should be
> invisible to
> humans, but completely Google-proof.)
>
> The current situation is quite unusual.  A hostess
> has banned club
> members from her house for saying completely
> innocuous things that
> she didn't like.  (She has rescinded the ban, but
> apparently only for
> the business meeting proper, not for the social
> hour.)  As such, it's
> possible that the majority of club members would
> like to change our
> meeting place, but none dare speak up at a meeting
> for fear that if
> the motion fails, they'll be made unwelcome at half
> the meetings.
> Offering people anonymity under such circumstances
> is no more
> dishonest than is having elections with a secret
> ballot.
>
> Of course it would be better if such situations
> didn't arise.  But
> given that one did, it's a matter of choosing the
> lesser evil.
>
> As it turns out, nobody has asked for anonymity.
>
> Mike Bartman wrote:
>
> > "Ernest said Capclave was listed on OkCupid."
> > That was me, not Ernest.
>
> Fixed.
>
> > Not a correction to the minutes, but to the data
> given at the meeting:
> > "Rebecca asked when free parking is available
> across the street.
> > Mike Walsh and Bob both said 6 pm."
> > I believe the meters said 7pm.
>
> I was wondering about that, since I remembered it
> had been 7 pm two
> years ago.  Someone should keep an eye on this next
> year.
>
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________