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@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@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@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@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@lp.org> wrote:
s
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business