Hi Alicia, First of all, please accept my heartfelt thanks for the tremendous amount of work you have put into this. With regard to adoption of the agenda for the 3/1/2014 meeting you modified the minutes to state "The agenda as amended was adopted on a voice vote." but you struck out the "with Starchild voting against" portion at the end. That should be retained, since Starchild has been willing to forgo some time-consuming roll call votes based on the understanding that it was sufficient to identify in the minutes the one or two individuals who were either voting against or abstaining on otherwise unanimous votes. Dan Wiener On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

Attached you will find two versions of updated minutes from the LNC meeting of the March 1, 2014. One version shows what changes I made, and this document does not have the appendices attached. The other shows how it looks with those changes incorporated, and this document does have the appendices attached.

The changes requested by LNC members for this set of minutes was more extensive than the other ones I have sent tonight.

Corrections in roll call voting have been made only after reviewing audio files.

I do not have all the documents which the draft minutes promise will be in the appendices. The main thing that I do not have which really ought to be included is a copy of the resolution the LNC adopted on the advice of Bill Hall regarding the office purchase. Since that is the wording of a motion adopted by the LNC, it needs to be in the minutes. If the chair or staff will provide me with an electronic copy of that, I will add it.

There were a number of instances where the accuracy of debate summaries was questioned. Rather than trying to fine-tune the wording of those attempts to document who said what during debate, I have largely opted to delete the commentary in light of the RONR prescription that minutes should be mainly about what was done rather than what was said.

-Alicia

-- *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”* -- Richard Feynman