tencati@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ron Tencati) (05/14/91)
Well Jeff, Bill does have a point. The votes are now in and being counted. What's done is done. I have avoided the political back-stabbing and muck because it wastes MY time. Now, if others feel they have the time to spend debating this, then good for them. I was not at the Board meeting on Monday, but if the votes are in, and the Board has closed the issue, what good is debating it anymore? If people still feel there is a change needed, I think the bylaws provide the means for another provision to be proposed. And by NOT keeping quiet about it, this newsgroup has raised the awareness of a large number of DECUS attendees and volunteers. No one will know what degree of influence this newsgroup had, but there were a lot of "No Bylaw Change" buttons at the Symposium, so I think an impact was made. I chose to stay neutral, since I really don't have the time nor interest to burn my cycles on DECUS politics. Discuss the matter, sure. But don't beat a dead horse. Ron Tencati Security & VAX SIG Steering Committees Tencati@DECUS.ORG (?)
dsroberts@biivax.dp.beckman.com (05/14/91)
In article <5321@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, tencati@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ron Tencati) writes: > Well Jeff, Bill does have a point. The votes are now in and being > counted. What's done is done. I have avoided the political > back-stabbing and muck because it wastes MY time. Now, if others feel > they have the time to spend debating this, then good for them. > > I was not at the Board meeting on Monday, but if the votes are in, and > the Board has closed the issue, what good is debating it anymore? Ron, I think you missed the point. Sure, not much point in debating it ONCE the VOTES ARE IN, but that is not what happened. The public muckraking took place WHILE the voting was going on. And yes, the doubts should have been brought up. I feel the opponents to the change showed remarkable (and correct) restraint in not making public noise about it until AFTER the board made the vote to send out the ballots. I believe that is the nature of the question Jeff asked, not whether it should now CONTINUE. > And by NOT keeping quiet about it, this newsgroup has raised the > awareness of a large number of DECUS attendees and volunteers. No one > will know what degree of influence this newsgroup had, but there were > a lot of "No Bylaw Change" buttons at the Symposium, so I think an > impact was made. > It would appear that you answered the question the same way as me in the end, though :-) Now I have a question: If the election process is a free and above-board one in which both sides have been allowed to express their opinions and, as is customary in any election in the US, attempt to influence the votes of others, HOW IS IT APPROPRIATE for the President of the DECUS board to criticise the efforts of those opposed to get the election to tilt in their direction? Mind you, that question is based on Jeffs (admittedly biased, nothing personal Jeff) description of Bills statement at Symposium. This all from the viewpoint of one who has been forced to stay neutral as I had no opportunity to vote (Jeff knows why :-( ) -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don Roberts Internet: don@beckman.com Beckman Instruments, Inc. Yellnet: 714/961-3029 2500 Harbor Bl. Mailstop X-12 FAX: 714/961-3351 Fullerton, CA 92634 Disclaimer: Always ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ctp@cs.utexas.edu (Clyde T. Poole) (05/14/91)
In article <5321@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> tencati@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov writes: >Well Jeff, Bill does have a point. The votes are now in and being >counted. What's done is done. I have avoided the political Bill has NO point. The voting is still open. His implication that it was all over because the Board thinks its all over is just not so. >back-stabbing and muck because it wastes MY time. Now, if others feel >they have the time to spend debating this, then good for them. >I was not at the Board meeting on Monday, but if the votes are in, and >the Board has closed the issue, what good is debating it anymore? That is just the point. The Board does not have the right or authority to "close" the issue. The issue is before the membership. Also, the votes are NOT in and being counted. The voting does not close for another week. >If people still feel there is a change needed, I think the bylaws >provide the means for another provision to be proposed. Yes they do. >And by NOT keeping quiet about it, this newsgroup has raised the >awareness of a large number of DECUS attendees and volunteers. No one >will know what degree of influence this newsgroup had, but there were >a lot of "No Bylaw Change" buttons at the Symposium, so I think an >impact was made. > >I chose to stay neutral, since I really don't have the time nor >interest to burn my cycles on DECUS politics. I respect your right to stay neutral, but you must then take responsibility for your neutrality. If the bylaws pass or don't pass, DECUS as we know it is changing. It is difficult to tell if it is changing for the better. It is incumbent upon us all to be aware of these changes and to make our feelings about direction known to the managment of the Society. If we do not, then changes that adversely affect the the Society are our own fault. >Discuss the matter, sure. But don't beat a dead horse. The horse is not near death. Dispite the fact that the by-laws change is before the membership for a vote, the Board at its Monday meeting chose to begin implementing part the change while at the same time violating its own agreements on how it will conduct business. >Ron Tencati >Security & VAX SIG Steering Committees >Tencati@DECUS.ORG (?) ctp ----- Clyde T. Poole - Technical Coordinator, Facilities and Equipment (in real life) DECUS U. S. Chapter, CommComm Chair and Member of the MC (in my spare time) Univ. of Texas at Austin Internet/NSFnet: ctp@cs.utexas.edu Dept. of Computer Sciences DCS: POOLE@DECUS.ORG Taylor Hall 2.124 BITNET: ctp@UTXVMS SPAN: UTSPAN::UTADNX::CTP Austin, TX 78712-1188 VOICE: (512) 471-9551 FAX: (512) 471-0548
killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff Killeen) (05/15/91)
> Well Jeff, Bill does have a point. The votes are now in and being > counted. What's done is done. Two corrections - 1) The election closes on May 23rd. 2) He wasn't referring to the current postings but the initial postings. The point he was making is the original postings were not appropriate. For future reference I am curious to see how those on net feel...
dsroberts@biivax.dp.beckman.com (05/15/91)
In article <41@gobi.cs.utexas.edu>, ctp@cs.utexas.edu (Clyde T. Poole) writes: > The horse is not near death. Dispite the fact that the by-laws change > is before the membership for a vote, the Board at its Monday meeting > chose to begin implementing part the change while at the same time > violating its own agreements on how it will conduct business. Could you elaborate on this for those of us that did not attend symposium, Clyde? BTW, for those of you that have read my previous posting, I hereby modify it in regards to closing of the vote based on what Clyde posted :-) -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don Roberts Internet: don@beckman.com Beckman Instruments, Inc. Yellnet: 714/961-3029 2500 Harbor Bl. Mailstop X-12 FAX: 714/961-3351 Fullerton, CA 92634 Disclaimer: Always ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ctp@cs.utexas.edu (Clyde T. Poole) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May14.121700.300@biivax.dp.beckman.com> dsroberts@biivax.dp.beckman.com writes: >In article <41@gobi.cs.utexas.edu>, ctp@cs.utexas.edu (Clyde T. Poole) writes: >> The horse is not near death. Dispite the fact that the by-laws change >> is before the membership for a vote, the Board at its Monday meeting >> chose to begin implementing part the change while at the same time >> violating its own agreements on how it will conduct business. > >Could you elaborate on this for those of us that did not attend symposium, >Clyde? At its meeting on the morning of May 6th, the Board of Directors approved a motion (5-2-2 I believe) to produce a single Budget Committee under the direction of the Treasure. This effectively eliminates the Management Council's role in the budget process including the elimination of the MC Budget Working Group. At the time of the motion NO operating procedures were produced and the Treasure was given no guidelines as to the make up or operation of the committee, thus giving her a free hand to do as she wishes. The new By-Laws currently being considered by the membership would have done approximately the same thing to the budget process. The real issue I have with what happend on Monday was a matter of process: 1) The proposal to merge the Budget Committees under the Treasure was NOT on the agenda and was a surprise to at least some of the members of the Board. 2) The Board by an internal agreement DOES NOT act on substantive new business at Symposia. 3) The issue of the elimination of the Management Council is a major part of the By-Laws change currently before the membership. Eliminating it piece-meal before the results are in seems like dirty pool to me. I am sure that I have left out things surrounding what happened on Monday. I invite anyone else that was in attendance at that meeting to comment. ctp ----- Clyde T. Poole - Technical Coordinator, Facilities and Equipment (in real life) DECUS U. S. Chapter, CommComm Chair and Member of the MC (in my spare time) Univ. of Texas at Austin Internet/NSFnet: ctp@cs.utexas.edu Dept. of Computer Sciences DCS: POOLE@DECUS.ORG Taylor Hall 2.124 BITNET: ctp@UTADNX SPAN: UTSPAN::UTADNX::CTP Austin, TX 78712-1188 VOICE: (512) 471-9551 FAX: (512) 471-0548
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (05/16/91)
I am very disturbed by all of this.
When I first heard of the attempts to produce a 1500-word-pro vs.
500-word-con ratio, I was somewhat upset. However, I got caught up in
the whole school-work-relationship business and wasn't able to cast my
vote. Next, I hear voting is over, only to hear two days later that
it's not over. Blech! It was wrong for Bill Brindley to say that
people should not have started talking about it in the first place. I
dont' have the $$$ to go to Symposia, I don't have a car, so meeting
with my LUG is near impossible, and other than official mailings and
this group, I don't get to hear about DECUS related stuff. Keep up
the good info!
-=> iain <=-
----------------------------------|++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| "He divines remedies against injuries; | "Words are drugs." |
| he knows how to turn serious accidents | -Antero Alli |
| to his own advantage; whatever does not | |
| kill him makes him stronger." | "Culture is for bacteria." |
| - Friedrich Nietzsche | - Christopher Hyatt |
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-