[SJAAboard] Do we need to tape the meetings?

[Dave North]

Mark Wagner:
> For the record, in cases where some disciplinary action is proposed 
> to the board, in the future I would prefer an official warning first.

I would suggest that if such a situation should arise again, the person 
in question should also be informed of the consequences under 
consideration. Officially. Even if this slows things down a bit.
	The history of difficulties from summary and unfair actions by the 
board is well known and to be strongly avoided, however annoying the 
alternative might seem at the time.

> I would also prefer whenever  possible to not cite individuals by
> name in the record.

This is particularly applicable in the case of a warning. It may not be 
avoidable in the event of disciplinary action.

> Phil Chambers ... about this suggested that only board members be subscribed

There's an ambiguity here I'd like to address. On the one hand, I think 
it perfectly reasonable for the board to put whatever constraints it 
wishes on whom may contribute to the list -- be it just the board, or 
some extended set. It's obvious that just any old spammer, to take one 
extreme, cannot be reasonably allowed to post. So it's just a question 
of where the bar gets set.
	However, I think it an extremely good idea for the board to allow 
distribution to anyone who wishes to be subscribed. It is in the 
interest of the club to be as transparent and open as possible. I hardly 
think it necessary for me to ramble on about why, but if there's anyone 
who doubts that openness is a good idea, let the discussion begin.
	So the problem here is "subscription" can mean both "right to post" and 
"right to read." Technically, it's normally trivial to allow the latter 
without the former.

Dave North