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

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Me as well.

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Starchild <starchild at lp.org> wrote:

>
> I agree, and will co-sponsor.
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
>                                     ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                          RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                  (415) 625-FREE
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2018, at 7:47 PM, Joshua Katz wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180103/26586620/attachment-0002.html>