[Lnc-business] Motion to Amend Policy for Automatic Approval of Minutes

[Joshua Katz]

I think it's better.  We might as well let the rule reflect the obvious:
there's no way (and no reason) to limit who may submit corrections, because
they have no automatic effect.  I'd cosponsor that.

Joshua A. Katz


On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>
wrote:

> After I went to the trouble to get confirmation that Daniel was okay with
> the revised wording, it occurs to me that maybe there's a better option for
> wording.  I guess I'll put my co-sponsorship on pause until I hear from the
> other cosponsors whether the following would be better.
>
> At times I have taken input from non-member, non-alternate, non-attendees
> of a meeting to correct a detail, spelling, whatever.  Paul Frankel during
> this term has written to give me useful feedback on minutes.  In reality,
> there's nothing to stop a Secretary from listening to feedback from
> whomever when writing the draft.  What if we removed the issue of whether
> they're members or alternates or neither by changing the first sentence
> from:
>
> "Attendees may submit corrections, clarifications and changes to the draft
> minutes for the Secretary’s consideration for a period of 15 days following
> the distribution of the draft minutes."
>
> to
>
> "Corrections, clarifications, and changes to the draft minutes may be
> submitted for the Secretary's consideration for a period of 15 days
> following the distribution of the draft minutes."
>
> Is that better, or worse?
>
> -Alicia
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> How will listening help?  How long must we listen before concluding that
>> no meow is forthcoming?
>>
>> In any event, I think the references to Schrodinger's Cat here have been
>> entirely correct.  Although it's been misused to demonstrate "look how cool
>> science is," the point of Schrodinger's thought experiment was that an
>> interpretation (the Copenhagen interpretation) which led to such a
>> consequence was wrong.  It was a reductio.  (The Copenhagen interpretation
>> had accepted such behavior but promised it was contained, so to speak, at
>> the microscopic level.  A simple way to sum up that argument would be the
>> casino argument: the micro weirdness is like the unpredictable results of
>> hands of blackjack, while the macro world, where we do not see such
>> weirdness, except in the LP, is like the casino's ability to predict its
>> average results over a year of play.  Schrodinger's point was that, if we
>> tolerate weirdness at the micro level, we can't keep it there, because we
>> can force an individual interaction to have macro effects.  The micro world
>> doesn't only exist to be summed up and averaged, we're also able, through
>> various mechanisms, to interact with it directly.)  The point we're
>> supposed to take from it is an acceptance of the Schrodinger pilot-wave
>> interpretation.
>>
>> So, while I agree that Schrodinger's alternates are not something we
>> should have, or something our bylaws meant to create, I don't think this
>> points to any deep mystery.  I think it points to a mistake.
>>
>> Joshua A. Katz
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> ===Was I the only one hoping that an alternate would say "meow"?====
>>>
>>> Or not.  We don’t know which it is until we listen.  Or not.
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:21 PM Daniel Hayes <daniel.hayes at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I will cosponsor “members and alternates”.
>>>>
>>>> Daniel Hayes
>>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> > On Jan 3, 2018, at 4:16 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > s
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180103/3b3c892a/attachment-0002.html>