|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I oppose this motion with the following comments:
1) I should say I support the notion, but not the motion :-) I agree we should strive to become a truly international standards body.
2) As worded, the motion denies our meeting planners the flexibility they reasonably need. Applying a forcing function is inefficient and arbitrary. Why can't we skip a year for logistical and cost reasons if common sense would indicate that is thing to do? Would we hold a meeting somewhere no-one in their right mind would, just to adhere to this rule? Let's consider venues and costs as they come up and use our common sense to approve or not. So who's common sense apply? See point #3.
3) I believe such a motion is unnecessary. This committee approves each and every session location. When international venue proposals come up (including costs, logistical considerations, etc...) all we have to do is vote accordingly. (If the motion were to instruct the meeting planners to come up with such proposals, I would be inclined to support. But it's not)
4) I believe such a motion is un-enforceable. What if we don't pull this off in some future year? Can someone declare our proceedings "out of order" and our decisions invalid if we don't adhere to the letter of this rule? Can the EC be somehow impeached? Who gets sued?
5) I believe the earlier points made about expense and logistical challenges remain valid and that many of our members do care about them. Various hand-waiving arguments don't make those go away. When faced with a proposal for venue X and attendance fee Y, we should be accountable and not hide behind a motion ("we had to because back in 2005 we had a motion...." )
Pat's idea of putting out a call for hosts is a good one if nothing else to gauge the true level of interest in this course of action.
---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.