From: Diva Las Vegas organizers (dlvorg@geekbabe.com)
Date: Sun Sep 07 2008 - 12:46:49 CDT
In this mailing:
Org List
Date discussion
Timeframes
Timeframes
Date selection concerns
Administrivia
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Org List:
This is the DLV 2009 Organizational Mailing List (dlvorg@geekbabe.com)
Replies to this message will be forwarded to the DLVORG list and not
the DLV-Announce or DLV-Discuss list.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date discussion:
The old cliche "be careful what you ask for, you may get it" comes
to mind here. My question is: Is this what we really want to do?
A related question: Will this do more harm than good?
To clarify the motion we will be voting on, this motion, as
entertained by the floor and as accepted by the floor, will
only invalidate the currently-proposed May 11-16 dates. It
will not "fork-lift" DLV into another timeslot.
Should the motion fail, the proposed dates will be considered
scheduled and things will stand.
Should the motion carry, those in favor of explicit timeframes
(see below) can introduce them.
>From a personal perspective, both the proposed dates (May 11-16)
and those which appear to be in favor (April 26/27 - May 1/2)
are equally convenient for me.
However, my notes suggest possible conflicts for Michelle and
Ginger. I would like to hear from both Michelle and Ginger as
to their ability/inability to make it the last week in April
and the first few days in May.
As of this time, I intend my vote and my support to be along
the line of maximum participation by volunteers and long-
timers.
Michelle and Ginger: Do these suggested dates below pose any
significant hardships to either of you?
Anybody else?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Timeframes:
Kimberly Komplin writes:
>I think that the late April time frames to be re-considered
>should be:
>Sunday April 26 - Friday May 1, 2009
>Monday April 27 - Saturday May 2, 2009
>But still considering the Monday May 11 - Saturday May 16, 2009
>dates if we can't settle on a set of late April dates.
Thanks, Kimberly. Should the motion carry, please feel free to
submit either of the above into consideration.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Timeframes:
Jamie Renae writes:
>As far as my personal choice goes, it still stands at a Monday
>thru Sat, or Sunday thru Friday. That is what the Condos I use
>have for check-in days (sunday and sometimes Sat). I am limited
>to 7 days so if I have to spend an extra night, like I usually
>have had to do, I need to move to a hotel for one night.
>Not a major crisis, but a pain in the ass.
It seems like the only timeframes that get any support are
those which begin on Sunday or Monday and end on Friday or
Saturday, so unless something unforseeable happens, you're
covered. :)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Date selection concerns:
Michelle writes:
>I think this is a waste of time and effort and creating a
>precedent that is likely to provide continuing issues in
>the future. How many votes and re-votes are we going to have?
If you are indeed happy with the currently-proposed dates and
want them to stand and want to keep things moving along, the
best thing for you to do is to speak, succinctly, in opposition
to the motion, let the discussion wind down and extinguish, and,
of course, cast your vote as opposed.
As you probably know from on-line fora, bringing up points of
order or technicalities tends to introduce metadiscussions and
drags things on longer.
As to how many votes and re-votes, I envision only one, this
one, as some circumstances have changed.
Remember that once scheduled, it takes a 2/3 majority to change
the dates more than three days, so once the dates are set,
there is a significant hill to climb as to changing them.
>Firstly, I was under the impression that a motion for
>reconsideration was required by 1 September? This seems
>to be after the date.
No, here's the timeline:
1. ca. August 1: Call For Comments opens.
2. August 31: Call For Comments concludes.
3. September 3: Floor opens for motion to reconsider.
4. September 10: Floor closes for said motion.
Here's the quote from the September 3 ORG mailing:
+Our one-month Call For Comments has expired and the floor
+is now open for a motion, should it be raised, to reconsider
+the DLV 2009 dates. The floor will remain open for such a
+motion for one week, closing for such a motion at the time
+of the September 10 ORG mailing. A duplicate motion will be
+considered to be a second.
>And quoting from an e-mail from 3 August....
>+A one-month Call For Comments period is now open, and will
>+expire August 31, 2008.
>Was this motion received prior to 1 September?
No, but it was received well within the window the floor was
open for such a motion.
>Is this creating a precedent that we will need to live by in
>the future, that despite a deadline, a review can be requested
>at any time?
No, deadlines were not violated in this case. The August 31
deadline was for comments, both from the Teeming Millions and
from organizers, not for a motion to reconsider.
However, the precedent for late rescheduling has, unfortunately,
been set back in November of 2005, in planning for DLV 2006,
when we realized we had picked the same week as NAB. It did take
a 2/3 majority to carry, which it did.
>Secondly, the basis of this proposal appears to be based on the
>change in circumstances of one person. Is this going to be basis
>for objecting to dates now and in the future?
Yes, I would say that the circumstances of our key players (which
includes you) needs to be considered.
>Thirdly, as stated to some degree already, the wording of the
>proposed motion appears to be two part, (a) review the dates (b)
>in favour of a late April date.Yet the motion as being placed on
>the floor is different, that is, (a) review the dates.
I admit I took some liberty interpreting the intent of the motion,
in order to keep things moving along. The motion mentioned a
non-explicit timeframe and the floor was not open yet for
timeframe nominations.
I probably should have requested a clarification from Kimberly,
and I will do so in the future in similar cases. My intuition
was that this would be the result:
A: Kimberly, please clarify, is this a motion to reconsider the
DLV 2009 dates?
K: Yes.
I wanted to move things along, I will request clarification in
the future, sorry.
>Does this mean that the only dates that will be allow if this
>motion is passed is late April dates or will all dates from
>March through May be allowed for re-litigation!
No, the motion as accepted is simply to invalidate the proposed
dates. Should it carry, any dates may be nominated, including
those currently proposed.
>Without wishing to sound too bitchy this constant concern about
>the issues of individuals with one set of dates or another is
>tiresome and time wasting.
We need to give everybody a bit of slack this year. No set of
dates is ideal, and any set of dates seems to lock somebody out
or create other obstacles. Everybody does want to participate
badly, and yes, there is some heated discussion and some angst
in here.
>For what its worse this motion should not be considered valid
>however if it is accepted as a valid motion I believe it is
>creating a poor precedence.
I really don't see how the motion is not valid. If Kimberly
wants to withdraw it, she is free to do so, but I interpreted
the intent of the motion to be what was entertained. I will be
more conscientious in following procedure in the future on
things like this.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Administrivia:
This is the Diva Las Vegas 2009 organizational list.
One address for all items regarding this list, additions, removals,
changes, submissions, questions, etc.:
dlvorg@geekbabe.com <--- NOTE: all lower case
Diva Las Vegas 2009
May 11 - 16, 2009 (tentative)
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Archives of this list appear on the web at:
http://www.geekbabe.com/annie/org09arc/
To unsubscribe: Simply reply to this message with the word UNSUBSCRIBE
in either the Subject: field or the first line of an OTHERWISE BLANK
message body. The word "unsubscribe" (case is insignificant) should be
the only item in the subject field or the first line of the message,
justified to the left.
To send material to this list: Send submission as regular e-mail to
the address: dlvorg@geekbabe.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 03 2009 - 07:12:05 CDT