Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 11:59:20AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> So far, the consensus is that our priorities are as follows:
>>
>
> I don't see any consensus at all. So far, almost everyone who has
> had anything to say about this is in fact a member of the funds
> group. That makes me pretty uneasy.
>
>
>> I haven't seen any disagreement with that specific ranking of priorities,
>>
>
> I have: we just had someone objecting to the very idea of either
> speaker subsidies or trade show booths. And that was one of the only
> people who are not part of the funds group to speak.
>
> A
>
>
When I made a suggestion to Josh Berkus that all of those things in
priority 2 needed to be broken out, and when I suggested that the broad
membership be given a chance to rank more highly specified items, and
when I suggested that trade shows and booths be ranked as well, in terms
of attendance, control and size, Josh summarily dismissed my suggestions
aS BEING A WASTE OF TIME! I was about to leave the group in disgust --
in the past I offered to buy space on the website, to write, etc. but
his summary dismissal of what to me is just plain common sense made me
mad! I realize that everyone is a volunteer, but ...
