The following was tabled to the next
business meeting:
Nominations
of officers
Meeting was called to order by Maxine at 11:10pm EST with the Serenity Prayer.
Attendance: 9
5 Operators:
Abram georgew
Maxine RobZ
TimF
2 Non-ops:
Deb Yo
2 Partial attendance: Ryan
Sassy
Approve minutes of 2/23/99 business meeting
Old Business:
Deletion of inactive OPs
Continuation of present OPs
Establish OPs’ selection and requirements
Maxine
reminded everyone that the minutes (2/23/99) are posted on website.
RobZ moved that we accept the minutes as read.
Abram
seconded
Eight
(+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 6 of 8 needed. Motion
passed.
Maxine
introduced item I.A. Determination of Op Status - Inactive OPs
Maxine
stated: StarLink-IRC Server requires deletion of OP's after 45 days of
inactivity as an OP. (OP may reapply immediately if attendance is restarted.)
Recommendation: That all OP's who have been inactive as OP's in #SLAA be
deleted.
TimF moved to table this until the meeting after next.
Yo seconded.
Deb asked
for what reason TimF has requested this be tabled.
TimF
commented that we have a reasonably full agenda tonight. The
"old" ops have had that status for, in most cases, over a year without
attendance. We've emailed them once, but they don't know about tonight's
meeting, muchless upcoming meetings. Putting it off wouldn't hurt
anything, but would 1) give us a chance to move on to more pressing issues
and 2) give them more opportunity to return to this channel.
Georgew
commented that these OPs have all NOT been here for a long time and they
are welcome to return anytime. I recommend we finish this business,
as it should be simple to do.
Four
(+) Three (-) Zero (x) 5 of 7 needed. Motion
failed.
RobZ
moved to vote on the two issues at hand for the old business (I. A. and
B.)
Deb seconded.
TimF moved to amend the word "doorman" to "doorperson."
RobZ seconded the amendment.
Six (+) One (-) Zero (x) 5 of 7 needed. Amendment
passed.
Maxine
separated the motion to vote on only item I.A. first.
TimF
questioned the accuracy of "StarLink-IRC Server requires deletion of OP's
after 45 days of inactivity as an OP."
Deb commented
that on her network, any op not active for that length of time is no longer
registered. The whole point is to keep server resources down and
safety up.
Georgew
stated that he is convinced we do not want active ops who have not served
for 45 days. I believe that is the principle here and wish to note
we are voting for the principle. The 45 days was only a reference.
TimF
stated that he has received clarification on this matter, and the wording
of this motion is NOT accurate.
RobZ
moved to amend the wording to be for "slaa" not "starlink."
Georgew
moved the motion on the floor be amended to read: "All
OP's who are inactive for 45 days or more be deactivated until they request
reinstatement and indicate they wish to perform as an OP."
RobZ
seconded.
TimF
stated that "inactive" is ambiguous - does that mean attending an #SLAA
meeting? If so, that affects AT LEAST one if not more of those on
the list to be deleted.
Georgew
stated that the motion refers to OP's specifically - so inactivity is intended
as an OP. Visiting slaa does us no good, and a visit is NOT being
an active OP.
RobZ
commented that with a lot of ops, one may not have an opportunity to serve.
45 days is short.
Five
(+) One (-) One (x) 5 of 7 needed. Amended
Motion passed.
Maxine
introduced item I.B. Determination of Op Status - Active OPs
Maxine
stated recommendation: All other present OP's be continued as 100 level
OP's to lead meetings and act as doorman doorperson.
Georgew moved "All present OP's be continued at 100 level to act as needed
for #SLAA meetings."
RobZ
seconded.
TimF
questioned the wording "continued at 100 level." Not everyone should
be 100, as officers will by nature of their position be higher level.
This motion reduces ALL op's - including Maxine (room owner) to 100.
I move motion be amended as such: "All present OP's
be continued at at least 100 level ops to act as needed for #SLAA meetings."
Deb seconded.
Seven
(+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 5 of 7 needed. Amendment
passed.
George called for the previous question. RobZ seconded. Six
(+) Zero (-) One (x) 5 of 7 needed. Call for question passed.
Amended
motion: "All present OP's be continued at at least
100 level ops to act as needed for #SLAA meetings."
Eight
(+) Zero (-) Zero (x) 6 of 8 needed. Amended
Motion passed.
Maxine
introduced item I.C. Determination of Op Status - Requirements
Maxine
stated requirement for OP's and selection could include: 1. 30 days or
60 days of recovery., and 2. Must volunteer.
Georgew moved
that "We solicit Op's on a regular basis as we need
them, but specifically requiring them to volunteer and have 60 days of
recovery in #SLAA."
Yo seconded.
Abram
asked for explaination of what is meant by 60 days of recovery in #SLAA?
60 meetings?
Georgew
stated he means simply regular attendance - hopefully a couple times per
week.
Yo claimed
Abram brought up a good point. Until "days of recovery" can be more
completely defined, the motion would seem meaningless.
Georgew
stated the only other alternative is days of sobriety (meeting bottom lines).
This is counterproductive - who would be the arbiter - what business is
it of ours - so simply being a regular, and showing interest by coming,
seems to be the best way.
Yo claimed
that being a "regular and showing interest by coming" is still not clearly
defined.
Abram
moved that the motion be amended to read "and to have attended 25 meetings
in #SLAA."
RobZ
stated that there is no way of keeping tack of exact meetings, so 60 days
is an about number not an exact one.
Sassy
commented that she thinks 60 days of fairly regular attendance is what
is meant.
Maxine
confirmed that the intention is 60 days and not 60 meetings.
Six (+)
Two (-) Zero (x) 6 of 8 needed. Motion
passed.
Maxine
introduced new business item I. Nomination of officers -- Nominations
will be accepted for the next 2 weeks for all positions.
Georgew
moved "Nominations
be accepted up until next Tuesday, March 9, so that Wednesday exists for
clearing against requirements, so a vote may be had at a meeting in one
week."
RobZ
seconded.
Yo stated
that he doesn't understand "Wed. exists for clearing against requirements."
TimF
pointed out that we have already established that the "requirements" are
SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS, so NO "clearing" is necessary.
Georgew
stated that he vehemently objected. While we need flexibility to
bend requirements, I will strenuosly object to acceptance of a nominee
who has, for example, only 2 months recovery instead of 12. While
guidelines, we need to approve candidates, not accept everyone.
RobZ
agreed with Gary, claiming he, too, needs help on that line in question.
Georgew
stated that the intention is to review all nominations against the requirements,
set last week, on Wednesday so all is clear for a vote next Thursday.
Not for strict adherance, but for meeting the intention and spirit of the
requirements that this august body passed with a purpose last week.
TimF
responded to "the intention is of reviewing all nominations against the
requirements set last week." It was CLEARLY passed that the requirements
are SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS previously and therefore NO passing or reviewing
need be done. I agree with george's statement "but for meeting the
intention and spirit of the requirements." But it is in that spirit
that people nominate, decline, AND VOTE. It is up to the group to
vote wisely knowing the intention and spirit of the SUGGESTED requirements.
To have any kind of review is ABSOLUTELY NOT NECESSARY. In fact to
do so, we would need to amend the requirements.
Yo stated
that clearly these SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS are NOT REQUIREMENTS at all,
but rather RECCOMENDATIONS. Further, no TERM OF OFFICE has been determined,
so nominations are not called for. Thirdly, a time limit was supposed
to be given for these meetings, and 2 hours I feel is PLENTY. I'd
move that the current motion be tabled for our next business meeeting!
TimF
seconded.
Georgew
suggested amending his original motion to include the requirements we all
agreed to as mandatory and not recommended.
TimF
explained that that motion is not on table, having passed last meeting.
This kind of motion would be new business.
Deb stated
that "required" means: demanded, ordered, insisted on. She asked
if the voters decide if the nominee is qualified for the job with no candidate
interviewing done by anyone or any group in authority?
TimF
noted that if a moton is against standing policy or 12 traditions - it
should be ruled out of order. This motion is against our standing
policy of SUGGESTED requirements.
Abram
commented that he believes all of us here are trying to achieve the best
for the channel with the skills and knowledge of procedures that we currently
have. At the same time, I think the comment about long meetings is
apt. I think we may need to consider meeting on the weekends, as
was once suggested. I hope we can set our next meeting time before
we are forced to adjourn by all of the east coasters falling asleep.
RobZ
remarked that we never got past old business and encouraged us to get along
and move forward when we meet again.
Georgew moved to table the current motion and adjourn until next Thursday,
March 11.
Yo seconded.
Six (+)
One (-) Zero (x) 5 of 7 needed. Motion passed.
Meeting was closed at 1:23am EST with
the Serenity Prayer.