If we were to respond to a "roll call", I can tell you I didn't. In fact,
if on any given day I have a large amount of mail for GAGEN, I assume (yes I know what
that does and did) someone is on a "soap box" again and I usually delete those
emails. I'm probably not the only one who does this. Let me apologize for not reading
the first email. So at this point I am lost.
kemis
In response to your last summary and this note.
For the last two weeks the Council has been
discussing the roll call - what is it, does it
serve a purpose and the statistics.
From the report, they apparently reached no
conclusions had no final statistics and took no
vote on the matter.
I do not doubt that you are reporting what they
did,
However,I would still like to know
How many voting members do we have?
? ccs, ? asst ccs, ? archives, ? other
how many answered roll call?
number not heard from?
I don't see how the numbers could be that
confidential.
I looked at a county website this morning.
It was last updated in September.
It carries the name of a cc that resigned months
ago.
Email contact to another person (not the RC)
The CC name on the table does not match either.
I think all CCs find it hard to be interested in
the project if the leadership isn't.
Donna Parrish
--- Connie Burkett <Connie(a)WVDSL.net> wrote:
We are over 1/3 of the way through the 6-month
trial of the "Summary Reports of
the Georgia Council" email list. After the last
Summary Report there was a
lively discussion for a few days by the CCs
with the feeling that the brief
summary does not contain enough detail.
Now that the November holiday is over, perhaps
we can continue with more
discussion on whether the Report or reporting
method need changed to be more
useful. When the trial period ends, if there is
enough interest in having the
Summary Report continue an election will be
held for the CC-Representative who
will do the Report. There are still 3+ months
left of the trial period for us to
decide if brief is enough, if more detail is
needed, if the Council list needs
to be opened in read-only mode, or if there are
other suggestions for how the
reports should be handled.
In my personal opinion, if more detail is
needed this could place far too much
responsibility in the hands of "one" observer
especially since the reports are
not subject to review by the RCs prior to
posting to the GAGEN list. It would be
far too easy for the "one" observer to
innocently or intentionally omit details
or obscure details with the wording of the
report. If more detail is needed,
IMHO a committee of two or three CCs to review
and compile the report would be
better than just one person.
Connie