From bill at nineplanets.org Fri Dec 1 02:39:13 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Lasers in the sky with diamonds Message-ID: As authorized by the Board at the last meeting, I purchased a green laser pointer with the intent of using it for pointing out constellations at our star parties and classes. I does indeed work pretty well for that but there are a couple of caveats. First, it is badly affected by light pollution; it works much better in dark skies than in bright ones, in a bright sky the beam is easy to see if you're the one holding it but if you're more than a few feet away from the origin of the beam it can get pretty dim. In reasonable suburban darkness (ie my backyard) I can see the beam from 10 or 12 feet away from the origin; that should be fine for star parties. Second, it works better in damp weather. I guess the deal there is that it has more water droplets to reflect off of. How these two factors will balance out at Houge is anybody's guess. I think we'll just have to try it for a while. Dark adaptation really matters, too. When you first go out from a bright room the beam is hard to see. But it only takes a few seconds before it starts to work. It's a little funny: at first it seems like it doesn't quite reach to the stars :-) The beam itself is just gorgeous: a nice pure green line with bright sparkles that constantly dance around (dust motes, I guess). Lasers in the sky with diamonds! And we'll have to develop a correct and consistent story for why it works so much better than a red laser. One theory is that the human eye is more sensitive to green light. That's true but I don't think it's the right explanation. When I aim both red and green laser pointers at a distant white object they both make spots of about the same brightness. But there's a line in the air from the green on only. I think the answer is scatter from air molecules and especially dust and water droplets. That's more efficient for green light than red (same reason that the sky is blue; this would work even better for blue lasers but they're thousands of bucks). But what the thing really excels at is as a replacement for a Telrad. I used a couple of bungie cords to attach it to my Dob and align it to the optical axis (not a good system, but adequate for a test). So when I want to point the Dob I just swing roughly in the right direction, push the button and then it's easy to get within a fraction of a degree of the intended target (assuming of course, that you know where it is :-) and MUCH easier than trying to peer thru a telrad. And WAY more fun! As soon as the price comes down (a few years, I would guess) I think it will be the end of the line for Telrads. A green laser is a LOT better. (Unless there are photographers around; the laser would almost certainly mess up their images. So Telrads may survive for those cases.) Maybe the best thing is when you're looking at something and someone come up and says, "Hey, that's neat, where is it?" you can just flash on the beam and the best imaginable indication of location flashes into the sky! You can see the beam thru the eyepiece, too. That's useless except for initially aligning it's but kind of fun. It might be useful to attach one of these to a binocular for finding and pointing out dimmer objects. The thing cost $235 + shipping (the charge hasn't yet shown up on my credit card so I don't have an exact figure yet). The trouble is it is so much fun I don't want to part with it! So how about this: I'll loan it to the club for a month or two for evaluation. Then if SJAA doesn't want it, I'll just keep it. Otherwise, SJAA can pay me (and I'll get another one :) I won't be at Houge tomorrow (well today, I guess). But if someone wants to come up here in the afternoon and pick it up that's fine. Mark? -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jane at whiteoaks.com Fri Dec 1 07:36:42 2000 From: jane at whiteoaks.com (Jane Houston Jones) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Lasers in the sky with diamonds References: Message-ID: <3A27C58A.E594A790@whiteoaks.com> Hi Bill, fyi, Mojo and I (as Ephemeris editors) are on the SJAA board list. We just added ourselves a month ago. Jane Bill Arnett wrote: > As authorized by the Board at the last meeting, I purchased a green laser > pointer with the intent of using it for pointing out constellations at our > star parties and classes. I does indeed work pretty well for that but there > are a couple of caveats. First, it is badly affected by light pollution; it > works much better in dark skies than in bright ones, in a bright sky the > beam is easy to see if you're the one holding it but if you're more than a > few feet away from the origin of the beam it can get pretty dim. In > reasonable suburban darkness (ie my backyard) I can see the beam from 10 or > 12 feet away from the origin; that should be fine for star parties. Second, > it works better in damp weather. I guess the deal there is that it has more > water droplets to reflect off of. How these two factors will balance out at > Houge is anybody's guess. I think we'll just have to try it for a while. > > Dark adaptation really matters, too. When you first go out from a bright > room the beam is hard to see. But it only takes a few seconds before it > starts to work. It's a little funny: at first it seems like it doesn't > quite reach to the stars :-) > > The beam itself is just gorgeous: a nice pure green line with bright > sparkles that constantly dance around (dust motes, I guess). Lasers in the > sky with diamonds! > > And we'll have to develop a correct and consistent story for why it works so > much better than a red laser. One theory is that the human eye is more > sensitive to green light. That's true but I don't think it's the right > explanation. When I aim both red and green laser pointers at a distant > white object they both make spots of about the same brightness. But there's > a line in the air from the green on only. I think the answer is scatter > from air molecules and especially dust and water droplets. That's more > efficient for green light than red (same reason that the sky is blue; this > would work even better for blue lasers but they're thousands of bucks). > > But what the thing really excels at is as a replacement for a Telrad. I > used a couple of bungie cords to attach it to my Dob and align it to the > optical axis (not a good system, but adequate for a test). So when I want > to point the Dob I just swing roughly in the right direction, push the > button and then it's easy to get within a fraction of a degree of the > intended target (assuming of course, that you know where it is :-) and MUCH > easier than trying to peer thru a telrad. And WAY more fun! As soon as the > price comes down (a few years, I would guess) I think it will be the end of > the line for Telrads. A green laser is a LOT better. (Unless there are > photographers around; the laser would almost certainly mess up their images. > So Telrads may survive for those cases.) > > Maybe the best thing is when you're looking at something and someone come up > and says, "Hey, that's neat, where is it?" you can just flash on the beam > and the best imaginable indication of location flashes into the sky! > > You can see the beam thru the eyepiece, too. That's useless except for > initially aligning it's but kind of fun. It might be useful to attach one > of these to a binocular for finding and pointing out dimmer objects. > > The thing cost $235 + shipping (the charge hasn't yet shown up on my credit > card so I don't have an exact figure yet). The trouble is it is so much fun > I don't want to part with it! So how about this: I'll loan it to the club > for a month or two for evaluation. Then if SJAA doesn't want it, I'll just > keep it. Otherwise, SJAA can pay me (and I'll get another one :) > > I won't be at Houge tomorrow (well today, I guess). But if someone wants to > come up here in the afternoon and pick it up that's fine. Mark? > > -- > Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org > Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net > Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Jane Houston Jones San Rafael, CA jane@whiteoaks.com http://www.whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Mark at IndigoSkies.com Fri Dec 1 12:04:00 2000 From: Mark at IndigoSkies.com (Mark Taylor) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Lasers in the sky with diamonds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20001201120055.00ae4f88@indigoskies.com> At 02:39 AM 12/1/2000 -0800, Bill Arnett wrote: >I won't be at Houge tomorrow (well today, I guess). But if someone wants to >come up here in the afternoon and pick it up that's fine. Mark? I don't expect to make it to Houge tonight, either. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Mon Dec 4 09:33:14 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Lasers in the sky with diamonds References: Message-ID: <3A2BD553.4513B4D2@znet.com> b: >>So how about this: I'll loan it to the club for a month or two for evaluation. Then if SJAA doesn't want it, I'll just keep it. Otherwise, SJAA can pay me (and I'll get another one :)<< I think SJAA would have to be collectively downright silly to pass up such an offer and I think we all know it. Thanks, Bill! dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Sat Dec 9 16:57:53 2000 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Calendar, Feb. 2001 Message-ID: <3A32D511.3654@sjpc.org> Hi, All, Here's what I have for the calendar in February. This is also election month, so that has to be mentioned too. I don't have a topic For Kevin's talk, Dave, can you supply one? February 2 -f- Astronomy Class II 2 -f- Houge Park star party Sset 5:34 pm, 67% moon sets 2:38 am. 10 -s- General Meeting: Kevin Zahnly, topic TBA Beard election! Vote early and vote often! 16 -f- Houge Park star party Sset 5:49 pm, 31% moon rises 2:11 am. 17 -s- Fremont Peak star party Sset 5:49 pm, 22% moon rises 3:04 am. 24 -s- Coe and Peak star party Sset 5:56 pm, 3% moon sets 7:22 pm. Clear Skies! -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page SJAA's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Treasurer at sjaa.net Sat Dec 9 17:28:43 2000 From: Treasurer at sjaa.net (Mark Taylor) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Calendar, Feb. 2001 In-Reply-To: <3A32D511.3654@sjpc.org> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20001209172549.0300add8@indigoskies.com> At 04:57 PM 12/9/2000 -0800, Jim Van Nuland wrote: > Beard election! Vote early and vote often! I'm pretty fond of mine at this point, but I think BillA's is more festive! ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Sun Dec 10 02:59:49 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Calendar, Feb. 2001 References: <5.0.2.1.0.20001209172549.0300add8@indigoskies.com> Message-ID: <3A336225.7CF@aenet.net> Mark Taylor wrote: > > At 04:57 PM 12/9/2000 -0800, Jim Van Nuland wrote: > > Beard election! Vote early and vote often! > > I'm pretty fond of mine at this point, but I think BillA's is > more festive! ;-) Yours isn't bad, Mark, you've got my vote! ;) Hey Jim, I propose we do this in categories: length, fullness, grooming, and overall appearance. :) Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Sun Dec 10 14:19:56 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Calendar, Feb. 2001 References: <3A32D511.3654@sjpc.org> Message-ID: <3A34018C.AD002A20@znet.com> 10 -s- General Meeting: Kevin Zahnly, topic TBA Beard election! Vote early and vote often! That's Zahnle, and I'm working him for a topic as I type. Mike Koop will, of course, be giving the first Astronomy class. The second was (Mike hoped) to be Jay Freeman's binocular talk. I don't know that anyone thought to ask Jay last night, did we? dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jane at whiteoaks.com Sun Dec 10 15:53:30 2000 From: jane at whiteoaks.com (Jane Houston Jones) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Calendar, Feb. 2001 References: <3A32D511.3654@sjpc.org> <3A34018C.AD002A20@znet.com> Message-ID: <3A34177A.4BE8A867@whiteoaks.com> Mike asked Jay last night. I was there at the time. Jane Dave North wrote: > 10 -s- General Meeting: Kevin Zahnly, topic TBA > Beard election! Vote early and vote often! > > That's Zahnle, and I'm working him for a topic as I type. > Mike Koop will, of course, be giving the first Astronomy class. The > second was (Mike hoped) to be Jay Freeman's binocular talk. I don't know > that anyone thought to ask Jay last night, did we? > > dave > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net > Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Jane Houston Jones San Rafael, CA jane@whiteoaks.com http://www.whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Sun Dec 10 16:31:52 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Calendar, Feb. 2001 In-Reply-To: <3A34177A.4BE8A867@whiteoaks.com> Message-ID: on 00/12/10 3:53 PM, Jane Houston Jones at jane@whiteoaks.com wrote: > Mike asked Jay last night. I was there at the time. Jane Me, too. The answer was basically "yes, but mail me the schedule". -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Mon Dec 11 10:18:30 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Calendar, Feb. 2001 References: <3A32D511.3654@sjpc.org> <3A34018C.AD002A20@znet.com> <3A34177A.4BE8A867@whiteoaks.com> Message-ID: <3A351A74.E9E14F98@znet.com> jane: >>Mike asked Jay last night. I was there at the time. << Good for you, Mike! I think that means we can list it in the Ephemeris schedule. Now if I could just get that dang physicist to give us a topic, we'd pretty much be up to date. d -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Mon Dec 11 10:51:44 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Minutes of December Meeting References: <3A32D511.3654@sjpc.org> <3A34018C.AD002A20@znet.com> <3A34177A.4BE8A867@whiteoaks.com> <3A351A74.E9E14F98@znet.com> Message-ID: <3A35223A.92A52A8A@znet.com> Please submit corrections and/or amendments Minutes Of San Jose Astronomical Association Board Meeting, December 9, 2000. Meeting was called to order at 6:41pm. All board members were present save for Jim Van Nuland, who was excused recovering from a cold (and who dropped by later for a few minutes to deliver some books and other information). There were no minutes present from the last meeting, so they could not be approved. President Dave North proposed extension of a free membership to Mohamad Magdy Abd El-Rasoul of Egypt, who who sent email indicating a wish to be a member and did not require Ephemeris delivery. Since there was no expense to the club, and loaner scope use was unlikely, the board passed this proposal unanimously. After discussion of the coming Beginning Astronomy Classes with no official teacher, Vice President Mike Koop volunteered to teach the first class and set the tone for subsequent classes. Time was set for 7:30 pm. He suggested Jay Freeman?s Binocular class would be a good second course, and it is expected that is how the schedule will go. The green laser procured by Director Bill Arnett was tested in less than ideal conditions, but the consensus was that it appeared unsuitable as a guide for constellation talks at Houge. VP Koop volunteered to acquire a flashlight and run a comparison test at the next Houge event. The problem seems to be proximity to the beam -- the laser seems an inobtrusive and excellent personal pointer, but if you?re not very close to the light itself, the beam is essentially invisible. The Nomination Committee indicated two candidates (Bob Havner and Paul Mancuso) may already have been located for the next election. The meeting was closed at 7:21 pm. Dave North President For the Secretary Jim Van Nuland -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Mon Dec 11 10:55:08 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: <3A32D511.3654@sjpc.org> <3A34018C.AD002A20@znet.com> <3A34177A.4BE8A867@whiteoaks.com> <3A351A74.E9E14F98@znet.com> Message-ID: <3A352306.59E6FF1C@znet.com> Steve Nelson has tentatively volunteered to keep the "Public Minutes" for the board as long as he doesn't have to serve on the board itself; he would be willing to do this (and write up the minutes for publication) simply as a public service to the board. I indicated we'd embrace this favor enthusiastically, and would like to place the idea before the board via email, since there is no cost involved. (Steve: we have a bylaw provision to do this kind o thing if it doesn't involve money or a change to the board or bylaws itself; I don't see any such conflict in this situation). Should the board approve and Steve accept, I suggest this would make it a good idea to put him on the board list. Dave North -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Mon Dec 11 11:33:47 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Kevin Zahnle's February Talk Message-ID: <3A352C18.5DFA3B8B@znet.com> We have a title: Dr. Kevin Zahnle, a theoretical physicist at NASA Ames Research Center, will speak on "Asteroid 4769 Castalia vs. Planet Venus: Home Movies of Big Bolides". -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From akkana at shallowsky.com Mon Dec 11 11:40:51 2000 From: akkana at shallowsky.com (Akkana) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes In-Reply-To: <3A352306.59E6FF1C@znet.com>; from north@znet.com on Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 10:55:08AM -0800 References: <3A32D511.3654@sjpc.org> <3A34018C.AD002A20@znet.com> <3A34177A.4BE8A867@whiteoaks.com> <3A351A74.E9E14F98@znet.com> <3A352306.59E6FF1C@znet.com> Message-ID: <20001211114051.C21247@shallowsky.com> Dave North writes: > Steve Nelson has tentatively volunteered to keep the "Public Minutes" > for the board as long as he doesn't have to serve on the board itself; > he would be willing to do this (and write up the minutes for > publication) simply as a public service to the board. > > I indicated we'd embrace this favor enthusiastically, I certainly do -- this would be great! > Should the board approve and Steve accept, I suggest this would make it > a good idea to put him on the board list. Agreed. ...Akkana -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil Mon Dec 11 12:11:23 2000 From: bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil (Bartolini, Jim) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes Message-ID: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B6026D59E7@pom-emh1.army.mil> From: Dave North >>Should the board approve and Steve accept, I suggest this would make it >>a good idea to put him on the board list. Sounds good to me..... Jim ........... :-) ================================================= Jim Bartolini ================================================= -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Treasurer at sjaa.net Mon Dec 11 12:32:19 2000 From: Treasurer at sjaa.net (Mark Taylor) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes In-Reply-To: <3A352306.59E6FF1C@znet.com> References: <3A32D511.3654@sjpc.org> <3A34018C.AD002A20@znet.com> <3A34177A.4BE8A867@whiteoaks.com> <3A351A74.E9E14F98@znet.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20001211122823.00b0a818@indigoskies.com> At 10:55 AM 12/11/2000 -0800, Dave North wrote: >Steve Nelson has tentatively volunteered to keep the "Public Minutes" >for the board ... and would like to >place the idea before the board via email, since there is no cost involved. Absolutely Yes. Thank you, Steve. >Should the board approve and Steve accept, I suggest this would make it >a good idea to put him on the board list. This sounds good to me. Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Mon Dec 11 13:02:13 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes In-Reply-To: <3A352306.59E6FF1C@znet.com> Message-ID: on 00/12/11 10:55 AM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: > Steve Nelson has tentatively volunteered to keep the "Public Minutes" > for the board Great. > as long as he doesn't have to serve on the board itself But he is leaving himself open to agressive arm twisting in future years :-) >... to put him on the board list. Sure. But I think we should ask him to let us approve anything he writes before it becomes public. Not that I think he might do anything deliberately harmful just that there might be embarrassing slips (eg announcing the Gregory award winner prematurely). The easy way for that to work and still be timely would be for him to write up his notes soon after the board meeting and distribute them via this list for approval. Since his notes are an informal service to the club, not the "OFFICIAL" minutes described in the law I don't see why this wouldn't work. (BTW, Dave's notes looked fine this month) -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Mon Dec 11 13:05:29 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: Message-ID: <3A35418C.1089435E@znet.com> >>I think we should ask him to let us approve anything he writes before it becomes public.<< I agree. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From mojo at whiteoaks.com Mon Dec 11 13:18:44 2000 From: mojo at whiteoaks.com (Morris Jones) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Is there a point at which you'll want to have board minutes published in the Ephemeris again? Maybe an agenda item for a future board meeting. Mojo On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Bill Arnett wrote: > on 00/12/11 10:55 AM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: > > > Steve Nelson has tentatively volunteered to keep the "Public Minutes" > > for the board > > Great. > > > as long as he doesn't have to serve on the board itself > > But he is leaving himself open to agressive arm twisting in future years :-) > > >... to put him on the board list. > > Sure. > > But I think we should ask him to let us approve anything he writes before it > becomes public. Not that I think he might do anything deliberately harmful > just that there might be embarrassing slips (eg announcing the Gregory award > winner prematurely). > > The easy way for that to work and still be timely would be for him to write > up his notes soon after the board meeting and distribute them via this list > for approval. Since his notes are an informal service to the club, not the > "OFFICIAL" minutes described in the law I don't see why this wouldn't work. > > (BTW, Dave's notes looked fine this month) > > -- Morris Jones <*> San Rafael, CA mojo@whiteoaks.com http://www.whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Mon Dec 11 13:21:17 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: on 00/12/11 1:18 PM, Morris Jones at mojo@whiteoaks.com wrote: > Is there a point at which you'll want to have board minutes published > in the Ephemeris again? Maybe an agenda item for a future board > meeting. My take on that would be to publish them only when there's something interesting to report. I'm happy to leave that judgement up to the editors. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Mon Dec 11 13:21:46 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: Message-ID: <3A35455C.D996A15B@znet.com> mj: >>Is there a point at which you'll want to have board minutes published in the Ephemeris again? Maybe an agenda item for a future board meeting.<< I think it would be a good idea, particularly if we had someone doing it well and regularly. I have no objection to the inclusion of these minutes, but I suppose we'd have to get unanimous approval. In the absence of JVN, these appear to be the official minutes this time. d -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From akkana at shallowsky.com Mon Dec 11 13:42:38 2000 From: akkana at shallowsky.com (Akkana) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes In-Reply-To: ; from mojo@whiteoaks.com on Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 01:18:44PM -0800 References: Message-ID: <20001211134238.B7481@shallowsky.com> Morris Jones writes: > Is there a point at which you'll want to have board minutes published > in the Ephemeris again? Maybe an agenda item for a future board > meeting. I think we should always publish them. In a way it's a waste of space (not that many people really care), but it's a way of making sure that we're operating out in the open and letting club members know what we're doing -- keeps us from doing anything shady. Not that we would, but some boards might. In fact, I'm surprised that it isn't required. And sure, the meetings are open to anyone, but not everyone is able to come in person, and since we never publish an agenda, there's no way for anyone to know ahead of time which meetings they might be interested in hearing. I also think we should be posting minutes to the mailing list. ...Akkana -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Mon Dec 11 14:16:59 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes In-Reply-To: <20001211134238.B7481@shallowsky.com> Message-ID: on 00/12/11 1:42 PM, Akkana at akkana@shallowsky.com wrote: >... I also think we should be posting minutes to the mailing list. I presume you mean the general SJAA list, not the BOARD list. If so, I agree. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Mon Dec 11 14:20:36 2000 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: <3A32D511.3654@sjpc.org> <3A34018C.AD002A20@znet.com> <3A34177A.4BE8A867@whiteoaks.com> <3A351A74.E9E14F98@znet.com> <3A352306.59E6FF1C@znet.com> Message-ID: <3A355334.7294@sjpc.org> Dave North wrote: > > Steve Nelson has tentatively volunteered to keep the "Public Minutes" > for the board as long as he doesn't have to serve on the board itself; Count me a YES. I doubt that we must pass a motion for this; the president may appoint committees including a committee of one. When the Board approves the minutes, they become official. If Steve is going to be at the board meetings, I fail to see any additional work for him to also be a board member. But that's up to him. PUBLISHING: One message a month isn't much additional load on the mailing list. But then it has to be the official minutes (one month ago). It is unlikely that we'd get 100% e-mail response to approve them earlier. -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page SJAA's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Mon Dec 11 14:29:28 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: <3A32D511.3654@sjpc.org> <3A34018C.AD002A20@znet.com> <3A34177A.4BE8A867@whiteoaks.com> <3A351A74.E9E14F98@znet.com> <3A352306.59E6FF1C@znet.com> <3A355334.7294@sjpc.org> Message-ID: <3A355533.5590144A@znet.com> JVN: >>Count me a YES.<< I figured. >> I doubt that we must pass a motion for this; the president may appoint committees including a committee of one. When the Board approves the minutes, they become official.<< That's true, but polling the board seemed thoughtful. However, with your agreement, I presume we would have a majority anyway, and I'm going to proceed with Steve on that basis. It was most important (I think you understand) to get your agreement. >>If Steve is going to be at the board meetings, I fail to see any additional work for him to also be a board member. But that's up to him. << Correct. I suggested as much, and he declined interest for the time being. >>One message a month isn't much additional load on the mailing list. But then it has to be the official minutes (one month ago). It is unlikely that we'd get 100% e-mail response to approve them earlier.<< I completely agree. It's too bad, too, as the failure to get email consensus does slow down some technical items. dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Mon Dec 11 14:30:06 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes In-Reply-To: <3A355334.7294@sjpc.org> Message-ID: on 00/12/11 2:20 PM, Jim Van Nuland at jvn@sjpc.org wrote: >... When the Board approves the > minutes, they become official. >... > PUBLISHING: > > One message a month isn't much additional load on the mailing list. > But then it has to be the official minutes (one month ago). It is > unlikely that we'd get 100% e-mail response to approve them earlier. So the same text can be published as an unofficial comment and later approved as the official minutes. Should a change in the text occur in the interval then a note to that effect can be included in the next month's minutes if anyone cares. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Mon Dec 11 14:38:10 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A355533.5590144A@znet.com> Message-ID: on 00/12/11 2:29 PM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: >>... It is > unlikely that we'd get 100% e-mail response to approve them earlier.<< > > I completely agree. It's too bad, too, as the failure to get email > consensus does slow down some technical items. Shall we change the bylaws in some way to fix this problem? Of course, it would be preferable if we could just convince all the board members to read their mail. But we don't seem to have much success in that. So perhaps we can allow official motions to pass via email with "only" a 75% majority? Or can we just go ahead and act unofficially based on the results of email conversations and later officially ratify those decisions at an official board meeting? This is the practical and simple thing to do and won't get us into any trouble if we restrict it to small matters. For the larger matters we probably don't want to act quickly anyway. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Mon Dec 11 14:41:48 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: Message-ID: <3A355815.F4EC913D@znet.com> b: >> So the same text can be published as an unofficial comment and later approved as the official minutes. Should a change in the text occur<< That, however, might look weird. I wonder if we should consider the idea of a "review committee" (folks who pay attention) for the minutes? >>Shall we change the bylaws in some way to fix this problem?<< Per the minutes and non-financial matters, I suspect that might be a good idea, and a good topic for our next meeting. dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Mon Dec 11 14:42:52 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: Message-ID: <3A355855.A4CAE4CC@znet.com> I have told Steve he is in position by appointment as of now (my personal fiat) and that the board will doubtless confirm that appointment (a formality). Would like to put him on the board list posthaste; can do? dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Mon Dec 11 14:40:20 2000 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: Message-ID: <3A3557D4.155E@sjpc.org> Bill Arnett wrote: > > [big snip] > So the same text can be published as an unofficial comment and later > approved as the official minutes. Should a change in the text occur in the > interval then a note to that effect can be included in the next month's > minutes if anyone cares. No. That was our procedure for some years, but then we had misunderstandings as to which was the draft and which was the final version. I'd rather that we publish only the final version. Steve would have to field all corrections and then put out the final version, either when all boardies have agreed to the draft and to all corrections; or when the board meets and approves the latest and therefore final version. -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page SJAA's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From akkana at shallowsky.com Mon Dec 11 14:59:25 2000 From: akkana at shallowsky.com (Akkana) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes In-Reply-To: <3A3557D4.155E@sjpc.org>; from jvn@sjpc.org on Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 02:40:20PM -0800 References: <3A3557D4.155E@sjpc.org> Message-ID: <20001211145925.A11752@shallowsky.com> Jim Van Nuland writes: > No. That was our procedure for some years, but then we had > misunderstandings as to which was the draft and which was the final > version. I'd rather that we publish only the final version. That makes sense, at least as far as publishing in the Ephemeris. Sure would be nice to let the membership know what's going on in a more timely fashion, though, in case they want to come to the next meeting and make comments. How about this? Steve posts his draft to sjaaboard for comments, we get any immediate comments anyone might have and notes on things that shouldn't be published yet (like Gregory award discussions), then post preliminary minutes on the sjaa (non-board) list so that members know what's going on. But nothing is published in the Ephemeris (or on the web site) until after the board votes at the next board meeting to make the minutes official. The permanent record (in the Ephemeris, which is therefore also on the web archives) is only the official minutes. ...Akkana -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Mon Dec 11 15:08:20 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes In-Reply-To: <3A3557D4.155E@sjpc.org> Message-ID: on 00/12/11 2:40 PM, Jim Van Nuland at jvn@sjpc.org wrote: > Bill Arnett wrote: >> >> [big snip] >> So the same text can be published as an unofficial comment and later >> approved as the official minutes. Should a change in the text occur in the >> interval then a note to that effect can be included in the next month's >> minutes if anyone cares. > > No. That was our procedure for some years, but then we had > misunderstandings as to which was the draft and which was the final > version. I'd rather that we publish only the final version. Steve or anyone else is free to come to the board meetings, take notes and publish them as he sees fit. The board may choose to approve that text as the minutes of the meeting or not. If not, Steve or anyone else is free to comment on that act as well. on 00/12/11 2:59 PM, Akkana at akkana@shallowsky.com wrote: >... Sure would be nice to let the membership know what's going on in > a more timely fashion, though, in case they want to come to the > next meeting and make comments. > > How about this? Steve posts his draft to sjaaboard for comments, > we get any immediate comments anyone might have and notes on things > that shouldn't be published yet (like Gregory award discussions), > then post preliminary minutes on the sjaa (non-board) list so that > members know what's going on. yes, that sounds right > But nothing is published in the > Ephemeris (or on the web site) until after the board votes at the > next board meeting to make the minutes official. The permanent > record (in the Ephemeris, which is therefore also on the web archives) > is only the official minutes. According to the Bylaws the really really official minutes are kept by the secretary in some Big Book somewhere that he must show to anyone who asks for it. I suppose Jim can paste in his copy of the Ephemeris :-) -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Mon Dec 11 15:11:10 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes In-Reply-To: <3A355815.F4EC913D@znet.com> Message-ID: on 00/12/11 2:41 PM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: >...>> Shall we change the bylaws in some way to fix this problem?<< > > Per the minutes and non-financial matters, I suspect that might be a > good idea, and a good topic for our next meeting. I don't see why we can't, for example, authorize the Ephemeris staff to spend $50 for postage without having to wait for a board meeting. Maybe that has to be unofficial and later ratified by an "official" vote. But in the meantime they can get their job done. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Mon Dec 11 15:27:40 2000 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: <3A3557D4.155E@sjpc.org> <20001211145925.A11752@shallowsky.com> Message-ID: <3A3562EC.2DDC@sjpc.org> Akkana wrote: > > Jim Van Nuland writes: > > No. That was our procedure for some years, but then we had > > misunderstandings as to which was the draft and which was the final > > version. I'd rather that we publish only the final version. Akkana wrote: > That makes sense, at least as far as publishing in the Ephemeris. > Sure would be nice to let the membership know what's going on in > a more timely fashion, though, in case they want to come to the > next meeting and make comments. Yes, this is a good idea, though frankly unlikely. Perhaps sometime we'll have something controversial (or interesting) enough to have people coming to the Board meeting. :-) Akkana wrote: > How about this? Steve posts his draft to sjaaboard for comments, > we get any immediate comments anyone might have and notes on things > that shouldn't be published yet (like Gregory award discussions), > then post preliminary minutes on the SJAA (non-board) list so that > members know what's going on. Okay, provided the posting has PRELIMINARY or DRAFT in the subject line and in the text. -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page SJAA's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Mon Dec 11 15:29:02 2000 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: Message-ID: <3A35633E.3A23@sjpc.org> (replying to a note from Bill Arnett) JVN wrote: > > No. That was our procedure for some years, but then we had > > misunderstandings as to which was the draft and which was the final > > version. I'd rather that we publish only the final version. Bill Arnett wrote: > Steve or anyone else is free to come to the board meetings, take notes and > publish them as he sees fit. The board may choose to approve that text as > the minutes of the meeting or not. If not, Steve or anyone else is free to > comment on that act as well. True, but what goes out on the SJAA member list is not chitchat, but quasi-official material. In previous mail, I agreed with Akkana to put a draft on the member list, provided it was marked draft or preliminary. (Oops, I just realized that note is still in my outbox.) OTOH -- If Steve genuinely feels that the board is seriously messing up or cheating, then it's his right and duty to blow the whistle via the member list. Bill Arnett wrote: > According to the Bylaws the really really official minutes are kept by the > secretary in some Big Book somewhere that he must show to anyone who asks > for it. I suppose Jim can paste in his copy of the Ephemeris :-) Seriously, I've done substantially that, lifting the text from the on-line Ephemeris, and printing it for my paper file. -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page SJAA's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Tue Dec 12 00:01:14 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Re: Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: Message-ID: <3A35DB4A.683E3DDC@znet.com> ...what song did they do? Was it Time "...tick ...tock"? Or was it "Three Minutes To Paradise?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Tue Dec 12 00:00:01 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: <3A32D511.3654@sjpc.org> <3A34018C.AD002A20@znet.com> <3A34177A.4BE8A867@whiteoaks.com> <3A351A74.E9E14F98@znet.com> <3A352306.59E6FF1C@znet.com> Message-ID: <3A35DB01.5DE7@aenet.net> Dave North wrote: > > Steve Nelson has tentatively volunteered to keep the "Public Minutes" > for the board as long as he doesn't have to serve on the board itself; > he would be willing to do this (and write up the minutes for > publication) simply as a public service to the board. > > I indicated we'd embrace this favor enthusiastically, and would like to > place the idea before the board via email, since there is no cost involved. > > (Steve: we have a bylaw provision to do this kind o thing if it doesn't > involve money or a change to the board or bylaws itself; I don't see any > such conflict in this situation). Such a position is called a "recording secretary." Technically the recording secretary reports to the head secretary (Jim). I don't see any problem with this. It also lightens the load on the secretary. I vote FOR. > Should the board approve and Steve accept, I suggest this would make it > a good idea to put him on the board list. Of course. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Tue Dec 12 00:18:32 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: Message-ID: <3A35DF58.5B8@aenet.net> Morris Jones wrote: > > Is there a point at which you'll want to have board minutes published > in the Ephemeris again? Maybe an agenda item for a future board > meeting. This is a good idea. It would be especially good for members who can't make it to meetings. And board meeting minutes would make the board's activity more open to the membership. >From a technical standpoint... The proper way to go is for the secretary (or recording secretary) to read the minutes of the previous meeting, then there'd be corrections, followed by a vote to approve. If the minutes are published, we can dispense with the reading and just refer to the minutes "as published." I realize this might seem backwards, but the "official" minutes are the permanent records kept by the secretary, not necessarily what shows up in the newsletter. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Tue Dec 12 00:25:24 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: <3A32D511.3654@sjpc.org> <3A34018C.AD002A20@znet.com> <3A34177A.4BE8A867@whiteoaks.com> <3A351A74.E9E14F98@znet.com> <3A352306.59E6FF1C@znet.com> <3A355334.7294@sjpc.org> Message-ID: <3A35E0F4.B72@aenet.net> Jim Van Nuland wrote: > > Dave North wrote: > > > > Steve Nelson has tentatively volunteered to keep the "Public Minutes" > > for the board as long as he doesn't have to serve on the board itself; > > Count me a YES. > > I doubt that we must pass a motion for this; the president may appoint > committees including a committee of one. When the Board approves the > minutes, they become official. This isn't a committee. I may be wrong about this, but I believe the choice is up to the secretary (you, Jim), since Steve would be technically reporting to you anyway. Since it was brought up as a motion, so we can still vote on it. > If Steve is going to be at the board meetings, I fail to see any > additional work for him to also be a board member. But that's up to > him. If he'd like to be a board member, that's fine. But it's also quite proper for the one recording the minutes to be impartial, (i.e. not actually on the board). Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Tue Dec 12 00:38:23 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: Message-ID: <3A35E3FF.64CE@aenet.net> Bill Arnett wrote: > > on 00/12/11 2:29 PM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: > > >>... It is > > unlikely that we'd get 100% e-mail response to approve them earlier.<< > > > > I completely agree. It's too bad, too, as the failure to get email > > consensus does slow down some technical items. > > Shall we change the bylaws in some way to fix this problem? Of course, it > would be preferable if we could just convince all the board members to read > their mail. But we don't seem to have much success in that. So perhaps we > can allow official motions to pass via email with "only" a 75% majority? A simple majority is common. On important matters, the usual thing is to require 2/3 majority. 75 percent is almost unheard of and 100 percent is only thought of in things like juries. If you want to have voting by e-mail, first everyone should be on line and active (I think we've got that covered), then you have to allow reasonable time for people to read their e-mail and reply. I'm in another club that meets on line, we allow about a week (some of them have to consult others before voting). In our case, maybe three days? Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Tue Dec 12 00:40:37 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: <3A355815.F4EC913D@znet.com> Message-ID: <3A35E485.4B8D@aenet.net> Dave North wrote: > >>Shall we change the bylaws in some way to fix this problem?<< > > Per the minutes and non-financial matters, I suspect that might be a > good idea, and a good topic for our next meeting. Changing the bylaws is a non-trivial matter. Is it really necessary before we do what we're talking about? Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Tue Dec 12 00:48:04 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: <3A3557D4.155E@sjpc.org> <20001211145925.A11752@shallowsky.com> Message-ID: <3A35E644.6789@aenet.net> Akkana wrote: [snip] > How about this? Steve posts his draft to sjaaboard for comments, > we get any immediate comments anyone might have and notes on things ^^^^^^^^^ What does "immediate" mean? I'm used to checking my e-mail once per day. It looks like I'm lagging the conversation by several "cycles," all since just yesterday. :/ > that shouldn't be published yet (like Gregory award discussions), > then post preliminary minutes on the sjaa (non-board) list so that > members know what's going on. But nothing is published in the > Ephemeris (or on the web site) until after the board votes at the > next board meeting to make the minutes official. The permanent > record (in the Ephemeris, which is therefore also on the web archives) > is only the official minutes. In the case of board minutes, they probably should be approved (made official) before going in the newsletter. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Tue Dec 12 00:07:47 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: Message-ID: <3A35DCD3.2AAB@aenet.net> Bill Arnett wrote: > > on 00/12/11 10:55 AM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: > > > Steve Nelson has tentatively volunteered to keep the "Public Minutes" > > for the board > > Great. > > > as long as he doesn't have to serve on the board itself > > But he is leaving himself open to agressive arm twisting in future years :-) Shhh, Bill, quiet. Let him get in first. ;) > But I think we should ask him to let us approve anything he writes before it > becomes public. Not that I think he might do anything deliberately harmful > just that there might be embarrassing slips (eg announcing the Gregory award > winner prematurely). This goes without saying. Minutes are routinely reviewed for accuracy. That's exactly what we do when we approve minutes. > The easy way for that to work and still be timely would be for him to write > up his notes soon after the board meeting and distribute them via this list > for approval. Since his notes are an informal service to the club, not the > "OFFICIAL" minutes described in the law I don't see why this wouldn't work. Why would they not be "official" minutes? As opposed to what, "casual" minutes? :) Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Tue Dec 12 03:00:24 2000 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes References: <3A35DCD3.2AAB@aenet.net> Message-ID: <3A360548.6073@sjpc.org> Gary Mitchell wrote: [big snip] Bill Arnett wrote (I think it was): > > The easy way for that to work and still be timely would be for him to write > > up his notes soon after the board meeting and distribute them via this list > > for approval. Since his notes are an informal service to the club, not the > > "OFFICIAL" minutes described in the law I don't see why this wouldn't work. Gary Mitchell wrote: > Why would they not be "official" minutes? As opposed to what, > "casual" minutes? :) We could think of them as Steve's Personal Notes. After they are approved at the next board meeting, they become IMHO Official Minutes, and I'd put a copy in my book, along with my own scribblings (if I was there). In case of a question, the approved minutes would override my own notes. OTOH -- we should adopt the title "Recording Secretary"; then Steve's notes are Draft Minutes, subject to approval at the next meeting, when they would become final or approved or official. Clear Skies (and Minutes)! -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page SJAA's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Tue Dec 12 08:41:11 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: <3A35E3FF.64CE@aenet.net> Message-ID: <3A365526.2AA9D282@znet.com> Gary: >>If you want to have voting by e-mail, first everyone should be on line and active (I think we've got that covered)<< First, in case anyone here doesn't know, our current bylaws read that any action we want to take without convening a meeting requires a 100-percent vote, and it has to be unanimous. Unless I remember wrong. Second, there are some board members who do not keep up on email, and will probably not respond at all. jvn: >>we should adopt the title "Recording Secretary"; then Steve's notes are Draft Minutes, subject to approval at the next meeting, when they would become final or approved or official. << I think the title is one of those Steve has already acknowledged, and the procedure is as you say. The only reason we would want to accelerate this process is to be able to let the membership know what happened at a recent board meeting. Publication in the Ephemeris is one useful way, online another. The latter is, of course, more timely than the former. In the normal course of events, publication in the Ephemeris after approval at a meeting can take from two to three months, and it's not clear that such slow publication gives the membership a very timely update... Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil Tue Dec 12 08:44:18 2000 From: bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil (Bartolini, Jim) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency Message-ID: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B60270CC7E@pom-emh1.army.mil> From: Dave North >>there are some board members who do not keep up on email, and >>will probably not respond at all. I'll respond......it's just that so much discussion of this has taken place on e-mail that, after a while, it end up looking to me like so much spam, and so I haven't read all the responses. So.....what's the bottom line here? Jim ........... :-) ================================================= Jim Bartolini ================================================= -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Tue Dec 12 08:54:40 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B60270CC7E@pom-emh1.army.mil> Message-ID: <3A36584F.4BDE316B@znet.com> jb: >>So.....what's the bottom line here?<< Steve will be keeping the public minutes (nonControversial) as Recording Secretary. That part is easy. It looks like JVN is happy to also have them become the official minutes (sticks them in his notebook) and I have seen no objection to this. No matter what, it's a win. What's not clear is when they will see publication and/or approval. Either: A) we don't publish them B) we publish them without official approval and approve later (publishing amendments) C) we publish them after the subsequent meeting and approval D) we find a quicker way to approve, then publish "final" minutes Various people have various takes on the four possibilities. I think everyone (so far) agrees it would be a good thing to publish them, but the questions are: After or before approval? If after, can we speed up approval in any reasonable manner? Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From akkana at shallowsky.com Tue Dec 12 11:10:03 2000 From: akkana at shallowsky.com (Akkana) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Steve Nelson and The Minutes In-Reply-To: <3A35E644.6789@aenet.net>; from wb6yru@aenet.net on Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 12:48:04AM -0800 References: <3A35E3FF.64CE@aenet.net> <3A3557D4.155E@sjpc.org> <20001211145925.A11752@shallowsky.com> <3A35E644.6789@aenet.net> Message-ID: <20001212111003.A18139@shallowsky.com> Gary Mitchell writes: > Akkana wrote: > [snip] > > > How about this? Steve posts his draft to sjaaboard for comments, > > we get any immediate comments anyone might have and notes on things > ^^^^^^^^^ > What does "immediate" mean? I'm used to checking my e-mail > once per day. It looks like I'm lagging the conversation by > several "cycles," all since just yesterday. :/ And, in a later message, Gary wrote: > I'm in another club that meets on line, > we allow about a week (some of them have to consult others > before voting). In our case, maybe three days? Three days sounds perfect to me. That would help me, too, since sometimes I go away on weekends (or just get busy doing non-computer-related stuff) and don't check mail for a few days. ...Akkana -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Tue Dec 12 14:44:55 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A36584F.4BDE316B@znet.com> Message-ID: on 00/12/12 8:54 AM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: > jb: >>So.....what's the bottom line here?<< > > Steve will be keeping the public minutes (nonControversial) as Recording > Secretary. That part is easy. > It looks like JVN is happy to also have them become the official > minutes (sticks them in his notebook) and I have seen no objection to this. > No matter what, it's a win. > What's not clear is when they will see publication and/or approval. Either: > A) we don't publish them > B) we publish them without official approval and approve later > (publishing amendments) > C) we publish them after the subsequent meeting and approval > D) we find a quicker way to approve, then publish "final" minutes I would vote for B. That can be done immediately without further difficulty. In the longer term I'm in favor of D. In the medium term I think we should effectively but not officially do our business via email when appropriate. The bylaws prevent us from doing official business without unanimous written consent. But they say nothing about informal discussions and agreements that may later be ratified by official action. In most cases (eg allowing Steve to make notes) that informal agreement is sufficient to start action. In other cases (eg whether Steve's notes become the official minutes) we have to wait for official action. In the long term, the above is needlessly complicated. We should simply vote by email. That will require a slight modification to the bylaws. It appears that, except in a few funny cases, we can change the bylaws by a simple majority vote of the board. If 4 of you agree with this I will prepare a formal proposal and submit it at the next board meeting. It would be something like: -------- The board may take action by email voting as follows: * a director makes a motion; discussion ensues. * not less than 72 hours from the beginning of the discussion, a director calls for votes; that director tabulates the results. * as soon as 5 "yes" votes are received the motion passes; if 5 "no" votes are received within 96 hours of the call for votes then the motion passes; otherwise it fails. * The tabulator will post the results when one of the following occurs: 9 votes are received, 24 hours have passed since the call for votes and 5 or more votes have been cast for one side, 96 hours have passed. * all this is done via the "sjaaboard" mailing list; an archive of all discussions will be kept for at least two months; the final motion and its voting record will be transcribed into the minutes. --------- Obviously, we can use this mechanism to approve the minutes. Independently of al this, personal notes, proposals, dissenting opinions or anything else relating to the club's business can be posted on the general sjaa list and (at the discretion of the editor) in the Ephemeris. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From akkana at shallowsky.com Tue Dec 12 14:54:59 2000 From: akkana at shallowsky.com (Akkana) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: ; from bill@nineplanets.org on Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 02:44:55PM -0800 References: <3A36584F.4BDE316B@znet.com> Message-ID: <20001212145459.K18139@shallowsky.com> Bill Arnett writes: > -------- > The board may take action by email voting as follows: > * a director makes a motion; discussion ensues. > * not less than 72 hours from the beginning of the discussion, a > director calls for votes; that director tabulates the results. > * as soon as 5 "yes" votes are received the motion passes; if 5 "no" > votes are received within 96 hours of the call for votes then the motion > passes; otherwise it fails. I think there's a typo here -- at least, it doesn't make much sense that receiving 5 "no" votes should cause a motion to pass. Is this more or less what you meant? | * as soon as 5 "yes" votes are received the motion passes; as | soon as 5 "no" votes are received, or if 5 "yes" votes are not | received within 96 hours of the call for votes, then the motion | fails. > * The tabulator will post the results when one of the following occurs: > 9 votes are received, 24 hours have passed since the call for votes and 5 or > more votes have been cast for one side, 96 hours have passed. > * all this is done via the "sjaaboard" mailing list; an archive of all > discussions will be kept for at least two months; the final motion and its > voting record will be transcribed into the minutes. > --------- Otherwise, it sounds okay to me if it's okay with the people who don't spend most days sitting in front of terminals. ...Akkana -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil Tue Dec 12 14:58:51 2000 From: bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil (Bartolini, Jim) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency Message-ID: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B60270D557@pom-emh1.army.mil> >>A) we don't publish them >>B) we publish them without official approval and approve later (publishing amendments) >>C) we publish them after the subsequent meeting and approval >>D) we find a quicker way to approve, then publish "final" minutes Ideally, I'd go for (D)...... Jim ........... :-) ================================================= Jim Bartolini ================================================= -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Tue Dec 12 15:05:56 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <20001212145459.K18139@shallowsky.com> Message-ID: on 00/12/12 2:54 PM, Akkana at akkana@shallowsky.com wrote: > Bill Arnett writes: >> -------- >> The board may take action by email voting as follows: >> * a director makes a motion; discussion ensues. >> * not less than 72 hours from the beginning of the discussion, a >> director calls for votes; that director tabulates the results. >> * as soon as 5 "yes" votes are received the motion passes; if 5 "no" >> votes are received within 96 hours of the call for votes then the motion >> passes; otherwise it fails. > > I think there's a typo here -- at least, it doesn't make much sense > that receiving 5 "no" votes should cause a motion to pass. Ooops :-) > Is this more or less what you meant? > | * as soon as 5 "yes" votes are received the motion passes; as > | soon as 5 "no" votes are received, or if 5 "yes" votes are not > | received within 96 hours of the call for votes, then the motion > | fails. What I intended so say was: * as soon as 5 "yes" votes are received the motion passes; if 5 "yes" votes are not received within 96 hours of the call for votes, then the motion fails. (it may fail sooner if 5 "no" votes are received but there's no need to spell that out) >...Otherwise, it sounds okay to me if it's okay with the people who don't > spend most days sitting in front of terminals. Hence the 96 hours :-) It would be helpful, btw, if we all knew each other's email habits. I read my email at least twice a day, usually much more often. How 'bout the rest of you? -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil Tue Dec 12 15:07:43 2000 From: bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil (Bartolini, Jim) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency Message-ID: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B60270D596@pom-emh1.army.mil> From: Bill Arnett >>I read my email at least twice a day, usually much >>more often. How 'bout the rest of you? I read it continuously during the day, once or twice during the evening.... Jim ........... :-) ================================================= Jim Bartolini ================================================= -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Tue Dec 12 15:37:19 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: Message-ID: <3A36B6A7.56A34A4F@znet.com> >>If 4 of you agree with this I will prepare a formal proposal and submit it at the next board meeting. It would be something like:<< Assuming the obvious changes (interpreting "something like" to include them) I'd support it as long as it did not involve any new expenditures. I am concerned about the airing of "money" issues at the meetings (they should be) even if nobody ever attends (you never know). Perhaps I'm being overly stringent? Obviously I check my email quite often. Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Tue Dec 12 15:43:28 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:08 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A36B6A7.56A34A4F@znet.com> Message-ID: on 00/12/12 3:37 PM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: >>> If 4 of you agree with this I will prepare a formal proposal and > submit it at the next board meeting. It would be something like:<< > > Assuming the obvious changes (interpreting "something like" to include > them) I'd support it as long as it did not involve any new expenditures. > I am concerned about the airing of "money" issues at the meetings (they > should be) even if nobody ever attends (you never know). > Perhaps I'm being overly stringent? Do you mean you don't want to vote on money matters via email? Or that you think there's some legal prohibition against doing so? Can you quote (or somehow refer to) the relevant law? I suppose I don't want to do anything actually illegal but I'm sure we can find a way to legalistically comply with the legalistic nonsense. I'm in favor of the intent of the law (if it exists) which is that such matters should be open to the membership. Maybe we can comply by allowing any member to listen in on the sjaaboard matters? Or by posting the motion on the mail SJAA list? Or at least by acting unofficially by email and then ratifying it later at the meeting. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Tue Dec 12 17:34:06 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: Message-ID: <3A36D207.8C23D4FE@znet.com> Bill: >>Do you mean you don't want to vote on money matters via email?<< Right. >>Or by posting the motion on the mail SJAA list?<< That might be okay, but I'd rather it were in open public meeting. Personal thang. I suspect it's legally required, but am not up to researching the law. Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Tue Dec 12 18:00:02 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A36D207.8C23D4FE@znet.com> Message-ID: on 00/12/12 5:34 PM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: > Bill: >>Do you mean you don't want to vote on money matters via email?<< > > Right. > >>> Or by posting the motion on the mail SJAA list?<< > > That might be okay, but I'd rather it were in open public meeting. > Personal thang. I suspect it's legally required, but am not up to > researching the law. Well then I suggest we set up the email method of voting in general and then eschew it for matters you think are inappropriate. I would imagine that for minor and non-controversial matters (ie JVN needs $20 to pay taxes) that no one will ever care. For larger matters (eg $5000 to fix the FPOA roof) I think delay is appropriate anyway. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From mojo at whiteoaks.com Tue Dec 12 20:50:32 2000 From: mojo at whiteoaks.com (Morris Jones) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Gary Mitchell's phone number ... Message-ID: Alas, last month I asked Gary Mitchell for his phone number for the Ephemeris masthead, and he sent it to me. It wasn't quite in time for the November issue, and I misplaced his email. It's not likely that Gary will see his email this evening, so I was wondering if someone else could send it to me, as I'm putting the January issue to bed this evening. Mojo -- Morris Jones <*> San Rafael, CA mojo@whiteoaks.com http://www.whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Tue Dec 12 20:56:31 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Gary Mitchell's phone number ... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Pls send it to me, too. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From mojo at whiteoaks.com Tue Dec 12 22:22:14 2000 From: mojo at whiteoaks.com (Morris Jones) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Astronomy class schedule Message-ID: I really need more information for the Activity Calendar for the astronomy class. All I have right now is dates. I don't know where they're held or what time or what the topics are. Could someone write a blurb on the subject, since they're starting up on Jan. 5? Mojo -- Morris Jones <*> San Rafael, CA mojo@whiteoaks.com http://www.whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Tue Dec 12 13:30:25 2000 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Houge Park reserved for 1st half 2001 Message-ID: <3A3698F1.7206@sjpc.org> Hi, All, I went by Kirk Community Center today, and signed up for Jan-June, 2001. I specified both hall and grounds for the class dates. Clear Skies! -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page SJAA's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Tue Dec 12 22:48:07 2000 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Gary Mitchell's phone number ... References: Message-ID: <3A371BA7.4E31@sjpc.org> Morris Jones wrote: > > Alas, last month I asked Gary Mitchell for his phone number for the > Ephemeris masthead, and he sent it to me. 408.265.2336 -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page SJAA's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Tue Dec 12 22:53:52 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Astronomy class schedule In-Reply-To: Message-ID: on 00/12/12 10:22 PM, Morris Jones at mojo@whiteoaks.com wrote: > I really need more information for the Activity Calendar for the > astronomy class. All I have right now is dates. Mike K. agreed to do the first class. He had some good ideas about the content but I don't remember the details. IIRC he said 7:30p for the time. At Houge. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From mojo at whiteoaks.com Tue Dec 12 22:59:11 2000 From: mojo at whiteoaks.com (Morris Jones) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Gary Mitchell's phone number ... In-Reply-To: <3A371BA7.4E31@sjpc.org> Message-ID: Thank you! =) Mojo On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Jim Van Nuland wrote: > Morris Jones wrote: > > > > Alas, last month I asked Gary Mitchell for his phone number for the > > Ephemeris masthead, and he sent it to me. > > 408.265.2336 > > -- Morris Jones <*> San Rafael, CA mojo@whiteoaks.com http://www.whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Tue Dec 12 23:06:57 2000 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: <3A36D207.8C23D4FE@znet.com> Message-ID: <3A372011.445@sjpc.org> Dave North wrote: > > Bill: >>Do you mean you don't want to vote on money matters via email?<< > > Right. > > >>Or by posting the motion on the mail SJAA list?<< > > That might be okay, but I'd rather it were in open public meeting. > Personal thang. I suspect it's legally required, but am not up to > researching the law. I read my e-mail around 11 am, 3 pm, and 8 to 10. Or maybe not at all if I'm out of town, even with my laptop. Or maybe at home only at 4 pm and 10 pm. Or.... Maybe (or maybe not) the unanimous requirement should be weakened, but I'm uncomfortable with it. Maybe 8:1 or something. Bill O'Shaughnessy has not weighed in on this topic but I know he is very unwilling to do business by e-mail. I might be willing to accept a vote other than unanimous, PROVIDED everyone has replied during the discussion. Yes, I know the board may meet in person with some people missing. Call me inconsistent. Call me cautious, too. -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page SJAA's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Tue Dec 12 23:41:28 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A372011.445@sjpc.org> Message-ID: on 00/12/12 11:06 PM, Jim Van Nuland at jvn@sjpc.org wrote: >... Bill O'Shaughnessy > has not weighed in on this topic but I know he is very unwilling to do > business by e-mail. If he had a good reason for that I would be more sympathetic. But it seems that he just doesn't like email. I fail to see why the club's business should be slowed down just because he's a neo-luddite. Sorry, Bill. But really, why do you resist this idea so much? > I might be willing to accept a vote other than unanimous, PROVIDED > everyone has replied during the discussion. Yes, I know the board may > meet in person with some people missing. Call me inconsistent. Call me > cautious, too. It's right to be cautious in general. But what danger are we avoiding by being cautious here? All we're doing is taking advantage of a relatively new but now well established communication channel. All we're doing is making the board's business more efficient. No one's trying to gain advantage or pull off some trick. And to be frank, most of what we do is pretty trivial in the first place. I would find it entirely proper in those cases where we're discussing something of real importance for someone to suggest that we wait for the face-to-face meeting for more discussion and final action if they felt that such a discussion was needed. But I fail to see why authorizing Lew to spend $50 for postage should require such a delay. And really all we're talking about is delays. If 5 directors agree before the meeting to vote in a certain way then they will eventually prevail; the only question is when. Perhaps someone in a minority might feel that he could more effectively press his case in person. That's a real possibility given that each of us have different levels of comfort and/or skill with the various means of persuasion. So I'll modify my proposal to this extent: during the 72 hour discussion period prior to the call for votes any director may request that the vote be postponed until the next meeting; that request will be honored unless all 8 others vote to deny it. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Tue Dec 12 23:39:48 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: <3A35E3FF.64CE@aenet.net> <3A365526.2AA9D282@znet.com> Message-ID: <3A3727C4.1DD8@aenet.net> Dave North wrote: In the normal course of events, publication in the Ephemeris after > approval at a meeting can take from two to three months, and it's not > clear that such slow publication gives the membership a very timely update... I don't know how it works here, but in two other clubs I'm in, the delay would never be more than one newsletter cycle. Perhaps there's something that can be done to improve efficiency without adding a significant load to the editor. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Tue Dec 12 23:35:38 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: Message-ID: <3A3726CA.6F4B@aenet.net> Bill Arnett wrote: > Our bylaws say that the board can act via circulated written proposals only > if it gets unanimous consent. It would be a good idea for new board members to be handed a copy of the bylaws as soon as they take office, if not sooner. Is that normally done, and I just fell through the cracks? > That seems silly to me but that's the way it is. I agree, 100 percent seems like an excessive requirement. Maybe this was done to make sure no director was left out of the loop. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Wed Dec 13 00:55:10 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B60270CC7E@pom-emh1.army.mil> <3A36584F.4BDE316B@znet.com> Message-ID: <3A37396E.4029@aenet.net> Dave North wrote: > > jb: >>So.....what's the bottom line here?<< > > Steve will be keeping the public minutes (nonControversial) as Recording > Secretary. That part is easy. > It looks like JVN is happy to also have them become the official > minutes (sticks them in his notebook) and I have seen no objection to this. > No matter what, it's a win. > What's not clear is when they will see publication and/or approval. Either: > A) we don't publish them > B) we publish them without official approval and approve later > (publishing amendments) > C) we publish them after the subsequent meeting and approval > D) we find a quicker way to approve, then publish "final" minutes > > Various people have various takes on the four possibilities. I think > everyone (so far) agrees it would be a good thing to publish them, but > the questions are: > After or before approval? > If after, can we speed up approval in any reasonable manner? If timeliness isn't important, option C would be best; otherwise B (and see about decreasing the newsletter delay). Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Wed Dec 13 01:09:23 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: Message-ID: <3A373CC3.74BE@aenet.net> Bill Arnett wrote: > The board may take action by email voting as follows: > * a director makes a motion; discussion ensues. > * not less than 72 hours from the beginning of the discussion, a > director calls for votes; that director tabulates the results. Shouldn't that be "chairman calls for votes" instead of "director?" > * as soon as 5 "yes" votes are received the motion passes; if 5 "no" > votes are received within 96 hours of the call for votes then the motion > passes; otherwise it fails. I think it would be better to specify what fraction of a majority. That way the size of the board can be changed without having to worry about updating anything else. > * The tabulator will post the results when one of the following occurs: > 9 votes are received, 24 hours have passed since the call for votes and 5 or > more votes have been cast for one side, 96 hours have passed. > * all this is done via the "sjaaboard" mailing list; an archive of all > discussions will be kept for at least two months; the final motion and its > voting record will be transcribed into the minutes. It might be better to specify "the board's e-mail remailer" rather than "sjaaboard." Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Wed Dec 13 01:12:36 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: Message-ID: <3A373D84.3CF2@aenet.net> Bill Arnett wrote: > > It would be helpful, btw, if we all knew each > other's email habits. I read my email at least twice a day, usually much > more often. How 'bout the rest of you? Once per day...unless I'm out of town. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Wed Dec 13 01:35:37 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A3726CA.6F4B@aenet.net> Message-ID: on 00/12/12 11:35 PM, Gary Mitchell at wb6yru@aenet.net wrote: > Bill Arnett wrote: > >> Our bylaws say that the board can act via circulated written proposals only >> if it gets unanimous consent. > > It would be a good idea for new board members to be handed a > copy of the bylaws as soon as they take office, if not sooner. > Is that normally done, and I just fell through the cracks? It's on our website at http://www.sjaa.net/bylaws.html >> That seems silly to me but that's the way it is. > > I agree, 100 percent seems like an excessive requirement. > Maybe this was done to make sure no director was left out > of the loop. I think it was just that we copied the boilerplate from a standardized document that was written before the invention of the computer. > Shouldn't that be "chairman calls for votes" instead of > "director?" Nah, I think anyone ought to be able to call for a vote. It won't be controversial. And there's a three day discussion period after all. >> * as soon as 5 "yes" votes are received the motion passes; if 5 "no" >> votes are received within 96 hours of the call for votes then the motion >> passes; otherwise it fails. > > I think it would be better to specify what fraction of a > majority. That way the size of the board can be changed > without having to worry about updating anything else. yeah. I'll do it that way when I write the real proposal. >> * The tabulator will post the results when one of the following occurs: >> 9 votes are received, 24 hours have passed since the call for votes and 5 or >> more votes have been cast for one side, 96 hours have passed. >> * all this is done via the "sjaaboard" mailing list; an archive of all >> discussions will be kept for at least two months; the final motion and its >> voting record will be transcribed into the minutes. > > It might be better to specify "the board's e-mail remailer" > rather than "sjaaboard." Probably shouldn't even be that specific. I'll think about that one. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Wed Dec 13 10:29:47 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: Message-ID: <3A37C017.4D650F08@znet.com> Gary: >>I agree, 100 percent seems like an excessive requirement. Maybe this was done to make sure no director was left out of the loop.<< I think it was mostly because nobody anticipated the technological changes that came after the document was first constructed. I would like to take a moment to explain my own perhaps overly rigorous attitude toward financial matters: California has long been a leader in requiring public airing of matters involving the use of public funds, or funds held in trust. I respect and admire that body of law (particularly the Brown Act) and personally have always tried to err on the side of compliance -- not because I'm fearful of punishment by law, but because I do like that law. Sometimes it may cause a delay in an expenditure, but I simply have a personal feeling that suffering such delays is a minor inconvenience compared to the good brought about by a willingness to make every effort, at every level, to be as open as possible about expenditures. I am not adamant about this; I'm just expressing my opinion, and certainly respect the thoughts of those who believe the current board procedure is too hidebound, particularly as regards minor policy and housekeeping matters. It is. Bill: >>I think it was just that we copied the boilerplate from a standardized document that was written before the invention of the computer.<< That is also my understanding. It was, in fact, originally in reference to the Teletype, if I recall. There is no particular reason that I know to see this constraint as being founded in general law. >>I think anyone ought to be able to call for a vote. << I agree. Gary: >>I think it would be better to specify what fraction of a majority. That way the size of the board can be changed without having to worry about updating anything else.<< I think that's a good point. >> see about decreasing the newsletter delay<< This has been inspected before, and the primary problem boils down to two things: first, we use bulk mail because it's dramatically cheaper. Second, the board meeting schedule "wanders" with the moon; this means you sometimes have a meeting that takes place a few days after the Ephemeris closes. Then, it's an entire month before the minutes can be approved... If anyone can find an elegant solution to these problems, I think we'd all be interested. In a related point, Gary mentioned to me that we should consider changing the Ephemeris mailing to include address correction; so that if it is mailed to an incorrect address (someone moved or whatever) it is returned to us. That way we'll know it's wrong. This is a bit expensive per event, but in the long run is probably cheaper, and I think he's right to suggest it. I have, however, been remiss in furthering his point. Sorry, Gary. Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From akkana at shallowsky.com Wed Dec 13 12:13:48 2000 From: akkana at shallowsky.com (Akkana) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A37C017.4D650F08@znet.com>; from north@znet.com on Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 10:29:47AM -0800 References: <3A37C017.4D650F08@znet.com> Message-ID: <20001213121347.B19463@shallowsky.com> Dave North writes: > >> see about decreasing the newsletter delay<< > > This has been inspected before, and the primary problem boils down to > two things: first, we use bulk mail because it's dramatically cheaper. > Second, the board meeting schedule "wanders" with the moon; this means > you sometimes have a meeting that takes place a few days after the > Ephemeris closes. Then, it's an entire month before the minutes can be approved... > If anyone can find an elegant solution to these problems, I think we'd > all be interested. That's an easy one. Let the Ephemeris publication follow the moon as well. PAS arranges it so that their newsletter arrives a few days before the general meeting (used to be a day or two after, but they got their act together and now it usually arrives before), which is very nice since that way I get (1) a reminder that there's a meeting and (2) more liklihood (than if the newsletter came out three weeks earlier) of seeing an announcement telling me about the upcoming speaker and meeting topic. Everything else we do revolves around the moon, why not the newsletter? Just because then we couldn't uniquely call it "the June issue"? Not much of an objection. ...Akkana -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From akkana at shallowsky.com Wed Dec 13 12:20:29 2000 From: akkana at shallowsky.com (Akkana) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Astronomy class schedule In-Reply-To: ; from bill@nineplanets.org on Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:53:52PM -0800 References: Message-ID: <20001213122029.D19463@shallowsky.com> Bill Arnett writes: > on 00/12/12 10:22 PM, Morris Jones at mojo@whiteoaks.com wrote: > > > I really need more information for the Activity Calendar for the > > astronomy class. All I have right now is dates. > > Mike K. agreed to do the first class. He had some good ideas about the > content but I don't remember the details. IIRC he said 7:30p for the time. > At Houge. And he talked to Jay about doing his binocular talk for the second class, and got a tentative okay. ...Akkana -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Wed Dec 13 12:22:10 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: <3A37C017.4D650F08@znet.com> <20001213121347.B19463@shallowsky.com> Message-ID: <3A37DA62.DE886B60@znet.com> Akkana: >>Let the Ephemeris publication follow the moon as well.<< Now that's an interesting, good, and new idea. It would involve a slight additional expense. I'd be very interested in ironing that one out. Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Wed Dec 13 13:56:47 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A37DA62.DE886B60@znet.com> Message-ID: on 00/12/13 12:22 PM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: > Akkana: >>Let the Ephemeris publication follow the moon as well.<< > > Now that's an interesting, good, and new idea. It would involve a slight > additional expense. > I'd be very interested in ironing that one out. I would prefer to go the opposite way and have the meeting schedule be fixed to the calendar instead of the moon. But unless there's widespread agreement with that, I'll go with Akkana's suggestion. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Wed Dec 13 13:56:50 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A37C017.4D650F08@znet.com> Message-ID: on 00/12/13 10:29 AM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: > Gary: >>I agree, 100 percent seems like an excessive requirement. Maybe > this was done to make sure no director was left out of the loop.<< > > I think it was mostly because nobody anticipated the technological > changes that came after the document was first constructed. > I would like to take a moment to explain my own perhaps overly rigorous > attitude toward financial matters: > California has long been a leader in requiring public airing of matters > involving the use of public funds, or funds held in trust. I respect and > admire that body of law (particularly the Brown Act) and personally have > always tried to err on the side of compliance -- not because I'm fearful > of punishment by law, but because I do like that law. > Sometimes it may cause a delay in an expenditure, but I simply have a > personal feeling that suffering such delays is a minor inconvenience > compared to the good brought about by a willingness to make every > effort, at every level, to be as open as possible about expenditures... I mostly agree. But it seems that the intent of the law and philosophy behind it can allow for some flexibility when it comes to trivial amounts. Can we compromise on a small limit below which financial things can be done via email? Say $100? -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Wed Dec 13 14:30:54 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] board meeting times Message-ID: I know I'm not alone in disliking the Saturday afternoon board meetings, especially in the summer. I like to do things in the daytime, especially on the weekends. And I hate missing my dinner. It would be a lot more convenient if the meetings were on a weekday evening. Preferably at a restaurant or late enough that it didn't conflict so badly. Shall we try again to find a time more convenient for all of us? -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil Wed Dec 13 14:37:10 2000 From: bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil (Bartolini, Jim) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] board meeting times Message-ID: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B6027411AD@pom-emh1.army.mil> From: Bill Arnett >>Shall we try again to find a time more convenient for all of us? At the present time, I can't make Wednesday nights; otherwise almost any other weeknight would be OK. Jim ........... :-) ================================================= Jim Bartolini ================================================= -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Wed Dec 13 14:40:45 2000 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] board meeting times References: Message-ID: <3A37FAED.2BEA@sjpc.org> Bill Arnett wrote: > > I know I'm not alone in disliking the Saturday afternoon board meetings, > especially in the summer. I like to do things in the daytime, especially on > the weekends. And I hate missing my dinner. It would be a lot more > convenient if the meetings were on a weekday evening. Preferably at a > restaurant or late enough that it didn't conflict so badly. Shall we try > again to find a time more convenient for all of us? 6:30 on Saturday is perfect. Looking at your above statements: I can do things in the daytime; I eat dinner at 5. Weekday evenings are often school events. Restaurants are noisy and expensive. And Houge Park is 0.5 from my house. Most convenient. -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page SJAA's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Wed Dec 13 15:11:10 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] board meeting times References: Message-ID: <3A38020C.41B11B30@znet.com> B.A.: >>I know I'm not alone in disliking the Saturday afternoon board meetings, especially in the summer... It would be a lot more convenient if the meetings were on a weekday evening.<< Agreed. Have never liked the Saturday board meetings, especially during daylight savings time. Was surprised the board chose to stay with them the last time this came up. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From akkana at shallowsky.com Wed Dec 13 15:23:41 2000 From: akkana at shallowsky.com (Akkana) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] board meeting times In-Reply-To: <3A37FAED.2BEA@sjpc.org>; from jvn@sjpc.org on Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 02:40:45PM -0800 References: <3A37FAED.2BEA@sjpc.org> Message-ID: <20001213152341.I20020@shallowsky.com> > Bill Arnett wrote: > > I know I'm not alone in disliking the Saturday afternoon board meetings, Jim Van Nuland writes: > 6:30 on Saturday is perfect. Looking at your above statements: I can > do things in the daytime; I eat dinner at 5. Weekday evenings are often > school events. Restaurants are noisy and expensive. And Houge Park is > 0.5 from my house. > > Most convenient. Most convenient for people who happen to live right next to Houge park, who happen to eat dinner very early, and who don't want to go anywhere on Saturday during the day. As long as you don't mind limiting board membership to people who fit this description (plus a few who are willing to make the sacrifice for a while), maintaining the current meeting schedule is fine. If you want to make it easier to entice new people into participating in running club activities, though, you might want to consider changing the meeting schedule. Myself, I work during the day until after dark, and the only time I get to enjoy my many outdoor interests and get some exercise (I can't stand gyms), is on weekends. A few hours between breakfast and time-to-find-some-food-so-I'll-survive-the-board-meeting isn't enough to go anywhere or do much. I normally eat dinner around 8pm, since that's when I get home from work; I'm not very hungry at 5:30, but eating nothing until 10pm doesn't work either. Giving up 1/8 of my free days, plus dinner, is too much, especially when there's no good reason for it (school star parties don't happen *every* night). SJAA is the only club I've seen that does this; every other club I've ever been involved with has held its meetings in the evenings, since so many people like to do outdoor things on weekend days. That's why I'm quitting the board, and that's why few members actually come to listen to SJAA board meetings, and it's at least part of why it's hard to talk people (especially younger people) into being on the SJAA board. It probably seems petty to some of you, but free time outdoors is very important to me, for reasons both of health and general sanity (if I have any left to preserve :-). I've said my piece. Take it however you will. As long as the board meetings happen on weekend days, I'll be off the board and will have to find some other way of participating in the club. ...Akkana -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil Wed Dec 13 15:27:32 2000 From: bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil (Bartolini, Jim) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Board Meeting Times Message-ID: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B60274130E@pom-emh1.army.mil> Oops -- I forgot........I'm also not available on Thursday evenings for the forseeable future. But, since there is a high probability that I'll be relinquishing my seat this coming year, it is pretty well a moot point...... Jim ........... :-) ================================================= Jim Bartolini ================================================= -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 1856 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.sjaa.net/pipermail/sjaaboard/attachments/20001213/1d7164bb/attachment.bin From bill at nineplanets.org Wed Dec 13 15:45:57 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Board Meeting Times In-Reply-To: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B60274130E@pom-emh1.army.mil> Message-ID: on 00/12/13 3:27 PM, Bartolini, Jim at bartolij@pom-emh1.army.mil wrote: > ... there is a high probability > that I'll be relinquishing my seat this coming year, it is pretty well > a moot point...... Yikes! We're going to be seriously short of candidates pretty soon. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil Wed Dec 13 15:47:35 2000 From: bartolij at pom-emh1.army.mil (Bartolini, Jim) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Board Meeting Times Message-ID: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B60274139C@pom-emh1.army.mil> From: Bill Arnett >>Yikes! We're going to be seriously short of candidates pretty soon. I only meant that there is competition for my seat (I think), and that I'm ready to relinquish my seat for some "new blood", if any. Of course, if there is still room, I'm ready to continue, subject to the 2 weeknights I'd not be available (if we change the meeting times). Jim ........... :-) ================================================= Jim Bartolini ================================================= -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Wed Dec 13 15:57:40 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] board meeting times In-Reply-To: <20001213152341.I20020@shallowsky.com> Message-ID: on 00/12/13 3:23 PM, Akkana at akkana@shallowsky.com wrote: >... I've said my piece. Take it however you will... I agree with everything Akkana said. Surely there's a compromise here somewhere? Possibilities: * AFTER the general meeting on Saturday's; this would tend to move the discussion along more efficiently since most of us would rather go home than argue * at Stuft Pizza on Bascom some evening (8pm Tuesday?): this is nearly as close to JVN as Houge, has a place to sit, is usually reasonably quiet, and cheap; if it conflicts with a school star party that's a very good excuse for some directors to avoid the damn meeting :-) * forget the monthly meetings and do most of our business by email; we could call "emergency" meetings after the general meeting from time to time when necessary. The bylaws require only a single meeting per year. This is my preferred solution. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Wed Dec 13 16:01:25 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Board Meeting Times In-Reply-To: <9112B1E00AB4D311A9F3009027AF88B60274139C@pom-emh1.army.mil> Message-ID: on 00/12/13 3:47 PM, Bartolini, Jim at bartolij@pom-emh1.army.mil wrote: > From: Bill Arnett > >>> Yikes! We're going to be seriously short of candidates pretty soon. > > I only meant that there is competition for my seat (I think), and that > I'm ready to relinquish my seat for some "new blood", if any. No such luck, Jim :-) We have 1 1/2 candidates for 2 seats (Dave's and Akkana's); the others whose terms are up have agreed to run again (but I've forgotten who is who; Jim has the official list) > Of > course, if there is still room, I'm ready to continue, subject to the > 2 weeknights I'd not be available (if we change the meeting times). Good! -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Wed Dec 13 16:02:44 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Paul Mancuso Message-ID: Anyone have Paul Mancuso's email address? -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Treasurer at sjaa.net Wed Dec 13 16:39:38 2000 From: Treasurer at sjaa.net (Mark Taylor) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] board meeting times In-Reply-To: <20001213152341.I20020@shallowsky.com> References: <3A37FAED.2BEA@sjpc.org> <3A37FAED.2BEA@sjpc.org> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20001213162527.030dc400@indigoskies.com> Yeah, I'm also not very happy with the current meeting schedule, and agree with most of Akkana's sentiments. I have too little time to spend with my children as it is, and bailing out on them one Saturday afternoon each month eliminates about 1/8 of the "quality time" I could have -- my work schedule and distance means that I'm rarely home in time for a family supper during the week. So yeah, I'd also be much happier with a Mon-Thurs evening meeting. IMO restaurants make lousy meeting places, and its hard to get people to agree to a place even once, let alone 12 times per year. My suggestion is to find a venue where we can meet (maybe even the Houge building?) at perhaps 8pm, giving everyone time to get off of work, eat what/where they want, etc. before the meeting. We'd all be on our way home at 9:30. FWIW, I'm planning to leave the board (for a number of reasons) when my term is up at the end of 2001. The inconvenient meeting schedule is one of those reasons. Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Wed Dec 13 16:51:18 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] Re: SJAA Board In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Paul! on 00/12/13 4:45 PM, Paul Mancuso at Paulm@catc.com wrote: > Yes I am still willing. > > paulm > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Arnett [mailto:bill@nineplanets.org] > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:40 PM > To: Paul Mancuso > Subject: SJAA Board > > > We spoke last month about you running for the SJAA board again. But I > didn't see you this month. Are you still willing? (Please!) -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Wed Dec 13 18:23:28 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: <3A37C017.4D650F08@znet.com> Message-ID: <3A382F20.70BF@aenet.net> Dave North wrote: > > Gary: >>I agree, 100 percent seems like an excessive requirement. Maybe > this was done to make sure no director was left out of the loop.<< > > I think it was mostly because nobody anticipated the technological > changes that came after the document was first constructed. Perhaps, but how is this a technological issue? The concept of requiring 100 percent approval on anything seems to be independent of that. A unanimous requirement might be good if someone's life hangs in the balance, such as in a jury, but in a club like this there is a downside. All it takes is one tightwad or just one disgruntled director to bring things to a halt. Now, I'm not saying this should be changed necessarily, just sounding a note of caution. > >>I think anyone ought to be able to call for a vote. << > > I agree. Are we supposed to be following Robert's Rules of Order? > >> see about decreasing the newsletter delay<< > > This has been inspected before, and the primary problem boils down to > two things: first, we use bulk mail because it's dramatically cheaper. > Second, the board meeting schedule "wanders" with the moon; this means > you sometimes have a meeting that takes place a few days after the > Ephemeris closes. Then, it's an entire month before the minutes can be approved... > If anyone can find an elegant solution to these problems, I think we'd > all be interested. A lot of it depends on the editor. What's he/she willing to do or put up with? One thing that comes to mind is linking the newsletter deadline to the meeting dates...say, one week after the meeting. Assuming minutes are approved at the subsequent meeting (and corrections are completed within a few days thereafter), they would have no more than about one month's delay before getting published. Another option, at least for the board, would be to send the minutes to the board remailer within a week and approve them online. If the deadline were two or three weeks after the meeting, we could get this meeting's minutes in the very next newsletter. > In a related point, Gary mentioned to me that we should consider > changing the Ephemeris mailing to include address correction; so that if > it is mailed to an incorrect address (someone moved or whatever) it is > returned to us. That way we'll know it's wrong. > This is a bit expensive per event, but in the long run is probably > cheaper, and I think he's right to suggest it. I have, however, been > remiss in furthering his point. > Sorry, Gary. That's alright...no skin of my nose either way. ;) The last I heard, returned bulk mail cost something like 85 cents. The bulk mail rate (depending on zip code) is somewhere around 12 cents. If it takes longer than seven months to discover you have a bad address, then it's worth it. However, we're talking about *pennies* here. A more important point is knowing sooner whether someone is receiving the Ephemeris. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Wed Dec 13 18:27:17 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: Message-ID: <3A383005.503E@aenet.net> Bill Arnett wrote: > Can we compromise on a small limit below which financial things can be done > via email? Say $100? Sounds reasonable to me Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Wed Dec 13 18:32:18 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: Message-ID: <3A383132.6FF7@aenet.net> Bill Arnett wrote: > > on 00/12/13 12:22 PM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: > > > Akkana: >>Let the Ephemeris publication follow the moon as well.<< > > > > Now that's an interesting, good, and new idea. It would involve a slight > > additional expense. > > I'd be very interested in ironing that one out. > > I would prefer to go the opposite way and have the meeting schedule be fixed > to the calendar instead of the moon. But unless there's widespread > agreement with that, I'll go with Akkana's suggestion. I already replied with (among another idea) the same idea as Akkana's...oh well. Maybe I should read all the messages before replying. :) Bill, what's your reason behind linking it to the calendar? Are we missing something here? Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Wed Dec 13 18:50:25 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] board meeting times References: Message-ID: <3A383571.1BDB@aenet.net> Bill Arnett wrote: > > on 00/12/13 3:23 PM, Akkana at akkana@shallowsky.com wrote: > > >... I've said my piece. Take it however you will... > > I agree with everything Akkana said. Surely there's a compromise here > somewhere? Possibilities: It's *very* difficult to have a meeting time that will make everyone happy. We all have different schedules and habits. In another club I'm in, we meet on Monday nights. We have more trouble getting people to run for office than SJAA. The meeting time may be a factor at keeping potential directors from running, but my experience has been that it isn't a big factor (on average). > * AFTER the general meeting on Saturday's; this would tend to move the > discussion along more efficiently since most of us would rather go home than > argue > * at Stuft Pizza on Bascom some evening (8pm Tuesday?): this is nearly > as close to JVN as Houge, has a place to sit, is usually reasonably quiet, > and cheap; if it conflicts with a school star party that's a very good > excuse for some directors to avoid the damn meeting :-) > * forget the monthly meetings and do most of our business by email; we > could call "emergency" meetings after the general meeting from time to time > when necessary. The bylaws require only a single meeting per year. This is > my preferred solution. Some good ideas! Here's another: Have quarterly face-to-face board meetings, do the rest on line. E-meetings (as I like to call them) can be great, especially if the members have to travel some distance. However, it's much less efficient and you have to rely on people's written skills. Not everyone is good at putting their thoughts on paper/screen, some are even lothed to do so. So, I think some mix of each would be best. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Treasurer at sjaa.net Wed Dec 13 19:24:53 2000 From: Treasurer at sjaa.net (Mark Taylor) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A383005.503E@aenet.net> References: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20001213191441.030e5a20@indigoskies.com> At 06:27 PM 12/13/2000 -0800, Gary Mitchell wrote: >Bill Arnett wrote: > > > Can we compromise on a small limit below which financial things can be done > > via email? Say $100? > >Sounds reasonable to me Of course this sort of thing doesn't apply to "regular operational costs" -- postage, tax-exempt filing, and phone bills come to mind. The treasurer already has the authority to take care of these kinds of things without any red tape. Now if I wanted to go spend $600 on a digital camera or green laser for the club, that sort of thing would require voting/approval. I totally agree that there should be some sort of limited discretionary spending permitted for those low-price incidentals that make sense. Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Treasurer at sjaa.net Wed Dec 13 19:46:55 2000 From: Treasurer at sjaa.net (Mark Taylor) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A382F20.70BF@aenet.net> References: <3A37C017.4D650F08@znet.com> Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20001213192554.030ef4a8@indigoskies.com> At 06:23 PM 12/13/2000 -0800, Gary Mitchell wrote: >A unanimous requirement might be good if someone's life hangs >in the balance, such as in a jury, but in a club like this >there is a downside. All it takes is one tightwad or just >one disgruntled director to bring things to a halt. Well said. I'm totally "for" the concept of a simple majority being the deciding factor on votes taken through any mix of any communications mediums. Financial matters excluded, and "sufficient" time-to-reply granted. My thinking is that if a majority has voted yes then the proposal passes, regardless of whether everyone else has chimed in at that point. How could latecomers (or abstainers) override the vote at that point anyway? >Are we supposed to be following Robert's Rules of Order? RRoO has its charm, but much of it is unnecessary parliamentary bureaucracy, IMO. Especially these days when things happen dynamically and people are geographically separated but have all this great technology to bring them virtually together. If someone wants to make a motion (implicitly pre-casting their own "yea" vote by asking), and someone else wants to "second it" (also implicitly voting "yea"), that OUGHT to be enough to kick off the process with two votes to the good. But if we want to follow RRoO for whatever reason, then things will slow down a little until the chair recognizes the motion (which IMO is a bureaucratic formality). Any chair that refuses to recognize a motion that has been seconded should be taken out in the alley. Regards, Mark (who just "voted yea" for simple "first majority" voting over email, passenger pigeon, and other non-live mediums) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Wed Dec 13 22:36:06 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A382F20.70BF@aenet.net> References: <3A37C017.4D650F08@znet.com> <3A382F20.70BF@aenet.net> Message-ID: <00121322403900.00777@north> Gary: >>Perhaps, but how is this a technological issue? The concept of requiring 100 percent approval on anything seems to be independent of that.<< The original text referred to "teletype." I think the idea was the only way to make sure everyone had seen the teletype communication was to require 100 percent response. Don't ask me; it's just old boilerplate. I did work during the teletype era, but not on any boards of direction, so I really never thought about the problem before. >>Now, I'm not saying this should be changed necessarily<< I am. >>A lot of [the newsletter schedule] depends on the editor. What's he/she willing to do or put up with?<< Absolutely nothing. I kid you not. >>The last I heard, returned bulk mail cost something like 85 cents. The bulk mail rate (depending on zip code) is somewhere around 12 cents. If it takes longer than seven months to discover you have a bad address, then it's worth it.<< We have some we might have been carrying for years. My original idea was just to make a first class mailing of "suspects." In the general membership, an error period that long would be quite surprising, so perhaps the original plan is best (assuming I get around to it). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Wed Dec 13 22:41:41 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20001213192554.030ef4a8@indigoskies.com> References: <3A37C017.4D650F08@znet.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20001213192554.030ef4a8@indigoskies.com> Message-ID: <00121322433301.00777@north> Mark: >>My thinking is that if a majority has voted yes then the proposal passes, regardless of whether everyone else has chimed in at that point. How could latecomers (or abstainers) override the vote at that point anyway?<< Normally, that's not the point. The point is the debate before the vote: it is possible that one of the "later" voters might have a compelling argument or idea that would have swayed the process, yet they didn't have the opportunity to make that comment before the issue was settled. Of course, with a reasonable time period start->finish, this should not be a problem. Compelling arguments could be registered, and votes changed. Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Wed Dec 13 15:59:31 2000 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: Message-ID: <3A380D63.24BC@sjpc.org> Bill Arnett wrote: > > on 00/12/12 11:06 PM, Jim Van Nuland at jvn@sjpc.org wrote: > > >... Bill O'Shaughnessy > > has not weighed in on this topic but I know he is very unwilling to do > > business by e-mail. > > > If he had a good reason for that I would be more sympathetic. But it seems > that he just doesn't like email. I fail to see why the club's business > should be slowed down just because he's a neo-luddite. > Tch, Tch. Didn't your Mama tell you not to call names? He contributes much. > It's right to be cautious in general. But what danger are we avoiding by > being cautious here? [snip] No one's trying to gain > advantage or pull off some trick. There is a fundamental matter of open vs. closed board meetings. Harder to pull off some trick when the world is (potentially) watching. > And really all we're talking about is delays. If 5 directors agree before > the meeting to vote in a certain way then they will eventually prevail; the > only question is when. Perhaps. Or they might be persuaded by arguments made by the non-email members. > Perhaps someone in a minority might feel that he could more effectively > press his case in person. That's a real possibility given that each of us > have different levels of comfort and/or skill with the various means of > persuasion. Thank you! It seems to me that you just justified not debating by e-mail. -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page SJAA's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jvn at sjpc.org Wed Dec 13 22:25:59 2000 From: jvn at sjpc.org (Jim Van Nuland) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: <5.0.2.1.0.20001213191441.030e5a20@indigoskies.com> Message-ID: <3A3867F7.4BE3@sjpc.org> > >Bill Arnett wrote: > > > > > Can we compromise on a small limit below which financial things can be done > > > via email? Say $100? We simply don't need to worry about disbursements by e-mail. In the years I can still remember, we've never had a financial issue that required an emergency board discussion. If I need $10 for a filing fee, I've written a check, then at a routine board meeting, asked for reimbursement. -- Jim Van Nuland, Secretary, San Jose Astronomical Association. Jim Van Nuland, Postmaster, sjpc.org JVN's home page SJAA's home page -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Treasurer at sjaa.net Wed Dec 13 23:27:40 2000 From: Treasurer at sjaa.net (Mark Taylor) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A380D63.24BC@sjpc.org> References: Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.0.20001213231606.02cc0888@indigoskies.com> At 03:59 PM 12/13/2000 -0800, Jim Van Nuland wrote: > > Perhaps someone in a minority might feel that he could more effectively > > press his case in person. That's a real possibility given that each of us > > have different levels of comfort and/or skill with the various means of > > persuasion. > > Thank you! It seems to me that you just justified not debating by >e-mail. And thank you both... This works both ways. It seems to me that there is equal justification for others' desire TO debate and vote by email. Many people feel they can can give a better response when they can take their time to think things through and formulate a quality answer, instead of being pressed to make a snap decision at a board meeting. Frankly, I'm getting extremely weary of this board's inflexibility in nearly all matters of "change". The 1970s ended about 21 years ago. In this valley, more-so than just about anywhere else, working folks are extremely busy with heavy productivity schedules. They have little time for bureaucracy and can benefit from all the "enabling technology" and connectivity the year 2000 has to offer. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Thu Dec 14 00:32:31 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A380D63.24BC@sjpc.org> Message-ID: on 00/12/13 3:59 PM, Jim Van Nuland at jvn@sjpc.org wrote: >... Didn't your Mama tell you not to call names? Well, I did say "sorry, Bill" in the very next line. I'm well aware that: > He contributes much. I'm just trying to find a way we can all contribute most efficiently. That may mean a little pain for some if it can be a big gain for others. I wouldn't propose this if I didn't thing that "little" and "big" in that sentence were accurate characterizations of what's being proposed. > There is a fundamental matter of open vs. closed board meetings. > Harder to pull off some trick when the world is (potentially) watching. Agreed. But we'll have Steve dutifully watching over us. And perhaps we could offer to let any other member in on the sjaaboard list if they ask. But we can pull off the trick anyway since in fact nobody is watching. And we're already required to make the minutes public on request. And nobody's trying to do anything funny in the first place. Email doesn't change any of that. It only makes it easier to get our real work done. >> And really all we're talking about is delays. If 5 directors agree before >> the meeting to vote in a certain way then they will eventually prevail; the >> only question is when. > > Perhaps. Or they might be persuaded by arguments made by the > non-email members. All our members have email. All know how to express themselves in that forum at least minimally. >> Perhaps someone in a minority might feel that he could more effectively >> press his case in person. That's a real possibility given that each of us >> have different levels of comfort and/or skill with the various means of >> persuasion. > > Thank you! It seems to me that you just justified not debating by > e-mail. No. As Mark points out, that cuts both ways. I thought I made a reasonable compromise by suggesting that anyone could call for a face to face discussion. Isn't that good enough? on 00/12/13 6:50 PM, Gary Mitchell at wb6yru@aenet.net wrote: > ... I think some mix of each would be best. And perhaps doing so flexibly as the particular situation demands would be better yet. >Are we supposed to be following Robert's Rules of Order? I see no reason to do so. They're not necessary in this situation. on 00/12/13 10:25 PM, Jim Van Nuland at jvn@sjpc.org wrote: >>> Bill Arnett wrote: >>> >>>> Can we compromise on a small limit below which financial things can be done >>>> via email? Say $100? > > We simply don't need to worry about disbursements by e-mail. > > In the years I can still remember, we've never had a financial issue > that required an emergency board discussion. If I need $10 for a filing > fee, I've written a check, then at a routine board meeting, asked for > reimbursement. Exactly. You're depending on the good will of the board. Why not let it express that good will immediately? What purpose is served by waiting? It's not emergency that we're talking about, just efficiency. on 00/12/13 10:41 PM, Dave North at north@znet.com wrote: >... The point is the debate before the vote: it is > possible that one of the "later" voters might have a compelling argument or > idea that would have swayed the process, yet they didn't have the opportunity > to make that comment before the issue was settled. > Of course, with a reasonable time period start->finish, this should not > be a problem. Compelling arguments could be registered, and votes changed. Hence my minimum 72 hour period between the start of discussion and the call for votes. Is that sufficient? ........... My reading of this is that we have a majority (me, Dave, Akkana, Mark, Gary) that's more or less in favor of the idea of voting by email with some restrictions as outlined. I'll consolidate the various amendments and post it shortly. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Thu Dec 14 01:24:12 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I just noticed the following bit of the bylaws: "Any meeting, regular or special, may be held by conference telephone or similar communications equipment, so as long as all directors participating in such meeting can hear one another." It seems to me that that very clearly allows email "meetings" unless you want to quibble about the definition of "hear". So my view is that we don't need to change the bylaws after all. Nevertheless, it is probably best to make explicit the rules for such "meetings". Therefore... Here's a cleaner version of my proposal (stuff in parens is explanatory only, not part of the proposal itself) to be inserted somewhere near Article 3 section 9: --------- The board may from time to time conduct business outside the physical meeting subject to the following provisions: 1. The medium of that discussion must be open to the membership (ie any member can subscribe to the sjaaboard list if he wishes; we'll have to publicize this. Notice that this is MORE open than the conference call allowed by the existing bylaws). 2. When an formal motion is anticipated that anticipation must be prominently noted in the discussion. The actual call for votes may not occur less than 72 hours from that notice unless this requirement is waived by unanimous (ie all 9 directors) consent. 3. Prior to the call for votes, any director may request that the matter be postponed until the next physical meeting. That request will be honored unless all of the other (8) directors vote to proceed anyway. 3. If a majority of the current board members (5) vote in the affirmative within 96 hours of the call for votes then the motion passes; otherwise it fails. 4. The director that called for the votes will tabulate the results and post them as soon as one of the following occurs: all (9) directors have cast their votes, 24 hours have passed since the call for votes and a majority has been achieved either for or against the motion (counting abstentions but not absenses), 96 hours have passed. 5. A director may grant another director a proxy to vote in his place in all matters covered in this section (BillO, this is for you :) . That proxy must be made publicly and recorded in the minutes. A director may abstain in advance for a specific period of time from all such matters (so that work can get done while he's on vacation). 6. The text of the motion and each director's vote will be transcribed into the minutes. An archive of the entire discussion will be kept electronically and made available to the membership upon request for at least 90 days. 7. No expenditure greater than $100 may be authorized outside a physical meeting except by unanimous written consent (as defined elsewhere in these bylaws). ---------- Note: the language of the bylaws is obscure and complicated. The above will have to be coerced into that language before actually adopted. But I don't want to obscure the issue at this point. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Thu Dec 14 05:32:28 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: <3A37C017.4D650F08@znet.com> <3A382F20.70BF@aenet.net> <00121322403900.00777@north> Message-ID: <3A38CBEC.66DF@aenet.net> Dave North wrote: > >>A lot of [the newsletter schedule] depends on the editor. What's he/she > willing to do or put up with?<< > > Absolutely nothing. I kid you not. In that case, unless we have someone waiting in the wings to take over as editor, we need to tread lightly. > >>The last I heard, returned bulk mail cost something like 85 cents. > The bulk mail rate (depending on zip code) is somewhere around > 12 cents. If it takes longer than seven months to discover you > have a bad address, then it's worth it.<< > > We have some we might have been carrying for years. My original idea was just > to make a first class mailing of "suspects." In the general membership, an > error period that long would be quite surprising, so perhaps the original plan > is best (assuming I get around to it). All that's needed is to just add the words "ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED" (bold letters) to the middle left edge, below the return address. That's it. USPS takes it from there. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Thu Dec 14 06:19:35 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: Message-ID: <3A38D6F7.1B37@aenet.net> Bill Arnett wrote: > 6. The text of the motion and each director's vote will be transcribed into > the minutes. An archive of the entire discussion will be kept > electronically and made available to the membership upon request for at > least 90 days. This, for the most part, defuses the point I just made about taking minutes. Technically, minutes only need to record what we do, not everything that is said. But still, I think this is something we should remain sensitive to. > Note: the language of the bylaws is obscure and complicated. The above will > have to be coerced into that language before actually adopted. But I don't > want to obscure the issue at this point. Are you suggesting an effort be made to translate this into "legalese" or otherwise make it any more obscure than absolutely necessary? You're going to have one hellofa time convincing me that would be a good idea. Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From wb6yru at aenet.net Thu Dec 14 05:59:27 2000 From: wb6yru at aenet.net (Gary Mitchell) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: Message-ID: <3A38D23F.5D24@aenet.net> Let me say right at the top that I'm in favor of the board meeting like this (e-mail). However, here's another possible monkey wrench in the works... Bill Arnett wrote: > > There is a fundamental matter of open vs. closed board meetings. > > Harder to pull off some trick when the world is (potentially) watching. > > Agreed. But we'll have Steve dutifully watching over us. And perhaps we > could offer to let any other member in on the sjaaboard list if they ask. > But we can pull off the trick anyway since in fact nobody is watching. And > we're already required to make the minutes public on request. And nobody's > trying to do anything funny in the first place. Email doesn't change any of > that. It only makes it easier to get our real work done. There is one point that you danced around, but didn't quite address... what about minutes? How are board meeting minutes to be taken if we meet in cyberspace? If Steve is expected to also take minutes on what we're doing right now, be aware, there's a lot of traffic flowing here. Furthermore, and perhaps more significantly, this tends to be a continuous meeting, not the one hour per month face-to-face thing we do at Houge. Distilling this stuff down into concise minutes--on a potentially continuous basis--might be a lot to ask, depending on how it's done. We really must have minutes on this stuff too, otherwise it becomes a more-or-less closed meeting. One alternative might be to treat our e-mail discussions as casual. Then at the regular meeting, just summarize what was said and vote then (if any voting is required). (I'm not really fond of this alternative, but it's all I can think of at the moment.) Gary -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bill at nineplanets.org Thu Dec 14 11:25:51 2000 From: bill at nineplanets.org (Bill Arnett) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency In-Reply-To: <3A38D6F7.1B37@aenet.net> Message-ID: on 00/12/14 6:19 AM, Gary Mitchell at wb6yru@aenet.net wrote: > Bill Arnett wrote: > >> 6. The text of the motion and each director's vote will be transcribed into >> the minutes. An archive of the entire discussion will be kept >> electronically and made available to the membership upon request for at >> least 90 days. > > This, for the most part, defuses the point I just made about > taking minutes. Technically, minutes only need to record > what we do, not everything that is said. But still, I think > this is something we should remain sensitive to. Yeah. One way to help the recording secretary would be for participants in the discussion to occasionally say, "let the minutes record that ...". Another possibility is to permanently record the archives of the mailing list (on paper probably) as an unofficial historical record. But I don't think that's really necessary. >> Note: the language of the bylaws is obscure and complicated. The above will >> have to be coerced into that language before actually adopted. But I don't >> want to obscure the issue at this point. > > Are you suggesting an effort be made to translate this into > "legalese" or otherwise make it any more obscure than > absolutely necessary? You're going to have one hellofa > time convincing me that would be a good idea. It's not that bad. Look at the bylaws at http://www.sjaa.net/bylaws.html All that's really necessary is to carefully define terms and be consistent with the terms already used. -- Bill Arnett bill@nineplanets.org Emerald Hills, CA USA http://nineplanets.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From north at znet.com Thu Dec 14 15:11:16 2000 From: north at znet.com (Dave North) Date: Sat Sep 30 03:57:09 2006 Subject: [BOARD] technical efficiency References: Message-ID: <3A395393.FB798BD4@znet.com> BillA: >> Here's a cleaner version<< Indeed it is. I think that's a completely reasonable proposal. jvn: >>they might be persuaded by arguments made by the non-email members.<< The time for nonEmail board members has pretty much passed. There is no requirement that anyone do business by email, but the idea that nobody should simply because one or two folks might not want to is unreasonable. Given that is the case, it simply becomes an issue of what we can (and should) handle by email. Not if, but when and how. Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sjaaboard list: sjaaboard@sjaa.net Changes made only by list administrator: mojo@whiteoaks.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------