Talk:ALV May 2014/Lessons

Here's all the points I disagree with, or which are up for debate in my humble opinion:

What went right

having the time period between the deadline for votable points, and announcing the agenda

This time period was as good as non existent, I would even dare call it a 'gotspe'.

LOCKING the draft agenda to prevent editing by random "contributors" (because then the changes get un-noticed by the secretary)

The secretary is unfamiliar with the 'recent changes' and the 'diff' button therein ? Come on now...

having printed version of the agenda, to distribute to people without laptops

Wasteful. I would instead advocate the use of the beamer. Or "a" beamer, pointed sideways, if the beamer would blind the board.

having snacks

The snacks were the crispy kind, *again*. This is not very nice to speakers and audience. Next time can we go for the silent food please?

stopping after 5 hours, NOT going on after the exhaustion point

I *strongly* disagree that that is always good. Exhaustion, in fact, can be a very strong motivator to get stuff over with quicker, cutting debates short. And then it is *welcome*.

It's also a wonderful way of ensuring that no more than half of the people in attendance and half of their attention span is at the points. Not conducive to proper decision making, IMO. Arda Xi 18:59, 10 May 2014 (CEST)

Yes, all voordelen have nadelen, you don't have to underline that. But it is for a good reason people suggest to hold meetings standing up; this, too, is a method to make people tired, thus expediting the meeting.

It is completely conveivable that decisions made at such meetings are hurried and less well thought out. Still, neither is by definition 'better'. Both have their merits. And I oppose articles that single out one or the other as "best" way. Ultratux 23:12, 10 May 2014 (CEST)

What can be improved

between the ALV announcement & the "draft deadline" should be at least 4 weeks, better 6

No. People will wait until the last day, we've seen this all the time. So it's better to have the 'soft' deadline (submission) very soon, in one week or so.

And have a rather long time to edit it ('hard' deadline) to a point it's useable and votable and has gained support(ers)

(then 2 legal weeks, then 2 weeks for "review" -> it adds up to 2.5 months, minimum)

That is not math. Request for ALV by >10% => ALV announcement max 2 weeks later => one week for agenda submits (soft deadline) => two weeks for debate and editing until good => hard deadline => 48 hours to reflect and fill in proxy forms => ALV.

It is NOT necessary to waits two weeks after locking of agenda. It is ONLY necessary to lock it two weeks before for *NEW* agenda point submissions. Thus, total time from request to ALV can be 5 weeks.

DO NOT accept any changes after the deadline!! (example: Philip's "Addendum" to Wizzup's point) (example1)

See my email -to which I have not got a response yet- which calls into question the neccessity AND legality to lock the agenda so strictly. There should be room for common sense edits.

Do we REALLY have to wait until a votable point gets unvotable because there's a spelling mistake in it?!? Please let's get real...

This would seem to invite more rigorous checking of votable points prior to setting the agenda. Editing it at the last minute is a terrible idea for various reasons. Arda Xi 19:06, 10 May 2014 (CEST)

Again, I disagree. The reason to close/lock the agenda is so people cannot add *new* points. It is ludicrous to stop people from making changes that improve wording, improve voting procedure, improve clarity. This until the very last moment.

add the TIMING to the agenda -- expected duration of each point!!!

You can't legally DO that. If the chairman doesn't give equal, fair, reasonable and balanced speaking time to those who request it, someone can challenge the outcome of a decision.

Since you can't know in advance how long a point takes, how can you set a deadline on it? Plus, this invariably favors the board/chairman, as he will first get his say/introduce the point,

and the thing that will therefore be cut short is always the questions and remarks from the assembly. Never would the time of the chairman ever be cut short. This, in itself, shows it's an unfair principle by design.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You can definitely set a definite limit on a point. This happens in pretty much every formal meeting. If you believe that time given is out of balance, that's a different point, but the possibility of that does not make setting limits impossible by any stretch of the imagination. Arda Xi 19:06, 10 May 2014 (CEST)

You can estimate the duration of a point, or an entire meeting. This is entirely different from setting a time limit. A time limit means that halfway during someone's sentence, a bell will ring and all talk must cease.

If it isn't apparent to you why this would be unfair, we are done talking because it can't get clearer than this, and thus convincing you will be utter impossible.

be MORE STRICT when accepting points! DO NOT Accept too many points!! accept that it is OK to REJECT the points, on account on: it is not well formulated - try again; it was not discussed before on the list; there are too many other points, sorry, wait for the next ALV (personal opinion: suggest that some proposed points can be resolved IN REAL LIFE, without voting for them... but by talking to the fellow members, seeking consensus rather then majority, talking at the members meetings, or in the Circle...) INSIST on the points being discussed before they are submitted to the agenda! (people who points get rejected BEFOREHAND will be "spared the disappointment" that they would feel anyway later, twhen their points have to be postponed anyway, because ALV had to be cut short, OR when their point gets rejected _anyway_ because it was not well formulated, not discussed enough in advance..., not clearly defined so there is a misunderstanding... )

All this is just a reiteration of what was said above already... I will not repeat my objections again.

DO NOT accept any changes after the deadline!! (example1) (Q: what will be the additional two weeks period be used for, then??) (A: word-smiting of the submitted points, ONLY between the maintainer & the secretary/board) (Q: do we need to split this into "one week when the changes will still be accepted, and one week lock-out?") (A: NO -- the "3 days" should be "two weeks", so that the board does not get burned-out with the pressure & stress of working in the last moment! ) AFTER the (draft) deadline, maintainer has the responsibility to chase the board to make any additions, that he/she has gotten from the community. any formal request for the change of point has to be requested the same way -- by emailing it the secretary. the board HAS the responsibility to make the clarification of the submitted points TO THE LEVEL OF CLARITY that THEY require the board has NO RESPONSIBILITY to read through the mailing-lists or wiki-pages-history to "fish" for the additional points!! (example1) it is NOT a valid argument to say "this point is reasonable" , "it is a good idea", "it is a small change"... NO argument is valid for adding another point, by a random contributor, after the (draft) deadline

All this is just a reiteration of what was said above already... I will not repeat my objections again.

ask the "maintainer" of the point to make the wiki page each point can have a separate wiki page, not the "draft agenda" it will be linked from the draft agenda this page can be used for discussion / additions / smiting / collecting support / alternative version .... BEFORE the deadline! AFTER the (draft) deadline, maintainer has the responsibility to chase the board to make any additions, that he/she has gotten from the community. the board has the responsibility to make the clarification of the submitted points TO THE LEVEL OF CLARITY that they require the board has NO RESPONSIBILITY to read through the mailing-lists or wiki-pages-history to "fish" for the additional points!! (example1)

All this is just a reiteration of what was said above already... Including literal doubles even. I will not repeat my objections again.

Ultratux 18:48, 10 May 2014 (CEST)