At 12:59 AM 4/21/98, Steve McCarty wrote:
>Points well taken, although maybe you and others shouldn't resend past
>messages in the thread you respond to, as it only makes it harder for
>everyone to keep up. Briefly summarizing previous messages if necessary
>is standard Netiquette.
--> Yes I agree basically but I have been hard put and had to search around
for original messages respondants have "summarized" to the point of losing
the original messge. I find that for messages I've read before it is only a
few seconds to scan the included original.
It has also been clearer because people have often been responding to
messages that have been added to by one or two others.
>I'd like to not think that the organization will be difficult to change,
>like traditional organizations that need in-person assemblies. The
>Constitution should be very general and able to serve into the
>foreseeable future, where we express our inclusiveness of fields covered
>and of the aspirations of members. Then the Bylaws fleshing out
>committees and so forth should be easier to change than the
-->I agree but don't kid yourself about "difficult to change" It is the
human issues involved that prevent change not the mechanical (like having
to get into something to phyically go to some place to consider the issue
all at the same time)
>Incidentally, I think we agree on being a kind of global .org
>basically, but what would that mean in Constitutional and operational
--> as you say above: keep it simple. Keep the whole ruddy thing to less
than 3 pages!
One page would be a masterpiece but maybe none of us are that talented?