Special General Meeting - Wednesday March 3rd

[TequilaDave]

When will you learn… fell into that one didn’t we Dave

We aim to please - now if you don’t mind, the adults are trying to have a grown-up conversation. Go play quietly in the corner for a bit

I see what you mean Ryan, and from what you’ve written just there it’s leaning towards a more coordination type role like I was thinking of anyway. That said, I’m still not entirely sure it’s needed, but I’m happy enough for it if everyone else thinks otherwise. One thing I do note though is that people who tend to do IT for a living aren’t always keen to do it for a hobby, and of the people you’ve listed at least three have expressed a lack of interest in being part of NZLARPS’ organising body…

[Cameron]

Insert opinions on why it is a good idea or not

I would appreciate discussion on ammendments to the motions only and not discussion on why we should vote one way or another on a motion as to keep my job of tracking proposed ammendments to the motions simple, Otherwise I may miss a suggestion (I will try my hardest not to) and people will bitch. If you want to campaign and try to sway others one way or another, take it to another thread this is not the place.

cough cough

So right now I’m seeing that ryan’s proposed motion is:

"That we instate an additional position of “IT Officer” in the national commitee who’s job discription reads “Coordinate the creation and maintenance of information technology resources for the society such as the society’s website, online forum, communications technology for meetings, and the enablement of projects via information technology.”.

Ryan is this correct? If so I will pencil it in at the END of the motions (due to it - as we can see - being the motion with the most potential discussion) and we can vote on it at the SGM after due discussion. If you wish please go back to discussion the WORDING of the proposed motion or the nature of what the positions job should be or if it is a voting or non voting positon if it exists. Discussion on the merits of there being a position at all: see my above quote.

Sorry to be a bit of a nazi but as stated above it is for the benifit of the motions being accurate.

[Ryan_Paddy]

Thanks Cameron. We could split the discussion on it to another thread if you like.

I’m happy for the proposal to go after the others. Although of course it would need to go before we nominate and vote on candidates for the positions, assuming we’re doing that at the SGM too.

Here’s my suggestion in motion form:

"That we create an additional position of “Information Technology Officer” in the national committee whose job description reads “Coordinate the creation and maintenance of information technology resources for the society such as the society’s website, online forum, communications technology for meetings, and the enablement of projects via information technology.”.

I.e. pretty much what you said, with some typing corrections and the position title spelled out in full (everyone will call them the IT officer, but for official documents we should do it in full.

Do we need to phrase it as an addition to the constitution, or is that assumed?

[Cameron]

Assumed.

[Ryan_Paddy]

Assumed.

Okay. I just ask because all the other motions are phrased as amendments to the constitution.