From: Diva Las Vegas organizers (dlvorg@geekbabe.com)
Date: Fri Jul 24 2009 - 11:10:55 CDT
In this mailing:
Org List
Time to call the question
Final motion discussion
Administrivia
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Org List:
This is the DLV 2010 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.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Time to call the question:
Remaining discussion appears below. Items that have come in
which do not pertain directly to this topic have been held
for a subsequent mailing.
Let's close the floor for debate and discussion on the current
motion and call for votes.
To clarify, Michelle's motion will only modify the way we take
our date vote. It unbundles the selection of the calendar week
from the length and start/stop dates.
It will not set any dates.
That will be done in a subsequent vote.
. . .
For those who are new, here's the way this works.
Everyone who is of voting status will receive a special "ballot"
e-mail shortly. The vote is cast by replying to this e-mail and
indicating your vote (FOR, AGAINST, ABSTAIN).
We keep the polls open until no votes are received for a 48 hour
period. We then announce the results.
We publish the raw votes, without names, allowing anyone to do
their own "recount" if they wish.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Final motion discussion:
Mary Beth writes:
>I'm thoroughly confused.
>I vote for whatever week has the cheapest hotel rates. End of
>discussion.
This current motion only modifies what's been our standard
practice of how we select the timeframe. We can discuss hotel
rates when the actual date discussion resumes.
. . . . .
Kuniko writes:
>Lets keep it simple, the dates are the number of days
>from beginning to the end of DLV.
>If it gets to the point where there are too many days,
>and not enough activities or attendees want it shorter,
>shorten the DLV dates for the following year.
This has already happened. One of the reasons we went (back)
to a six-day DLV a few years ago was due to weaknesses in
the schedule, primarily the weak endings, and not enough
volunteers to effectively cover things.
>If there are too many activities and
>attendees want it longer, increase the DLV dates.
>I think it can get out of hand if we get into some
>days on or some days off during the week or
>every other day of the week, or whatevers when
>DLV occurs.
>Attendees come and go during the DLV anyway
>based on when they can travel.
>I think Annie answered about not having
>'do your own thing' days.
I do believe that for each day we offer to attendees,
we should cover them adequately with quality things
to do.
. . . . .
Michelle (NZ) writes:
>I agree we should get this over and done with. To be honest
>I didn't expect a vote, I was simply pointing out a problem
>with selecting the week and days of the week together. This
>has been an issue recently.
>To give an example only:
>Say there are three options to vote for (Dates / Days fictitious - for
>example use only):
>Opt 1 - 1 Apr (Sun) - 6 Apr (Fri)
>Opt 2 - 2 Apr (Mon) - 7 Apr (Sat)
>Opt 3 - 9 Apr (Mon) - 14 Apr (Sat)
>Lets say option 1 and 2 get 6 votes each and option 3 gets 8 votes. The
>issue here in this case is that ACTUALLY 12 people voted for the first week
>of April and ONLY 8 for the second week.
>The more options (ie different dates within the same week) the more of an
>issue it becomes. It is this situation, sort of happens every year, that I
>indicated should be fixed.
You raised a valid point. That's why I accepted it as a motion.
This is the issue we had last year when two similar timeframes
"diluted" the votes for each other.
However, I think it should be a group decision, not an arbitrary
one by me, so that's why I considered it to be a motion.
>Now there may be some years, months, weeks and dates that are DAY
>specific. If so then its easily to vote for a particular week and
>include a specific statement along the lines of "if this week is chosen
>the only says will be x to y".
>The current voting method, of dates and and days also automatically
>defines the length. This doesn't really change except in so much as
>length / days can be separately chosen with the chosen week. Whether
>these votes happen together or not is irrelevant. I suspect we will
>need two votes as peoples preference for days may be very dependent on
>which week we go for.
Your suggestion, which I accepted as a motion, says to take the
two votes simultaneously. I think that's the best way, should the
motion pass, since there is a desire expressed to move formalities
along and get them resolved quickly.
. . . . .
JoAnn writes:
>I suggest a single Motion to pick the "Base line week" starting
>on a Sunday morning and ending on a Saturday night, then have a
>follow-up Motion later to define if there will be an "extended
>week" or "reduced week".
>To combine the two Motions I believe is a "complication" that
>generates confusing discussion.
>Just an observation
This is the same as Michelle's, except it provides for two rounds
of votes.
We do have a motion live on the floor now, and should it fail, you
may introduce this one for consideration.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Administrivia:
This is the Diva Las Vegas 2010 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 2010
Dates to be announced
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Archives of this list appear on the web at:
http://www.geekbabe.com/annie/org10arc/
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 16 2010 - 09:56:45 CDT