In case you were beginning to wonder if anyone read it :-), I've scanned
through these two articles, and I'll probably have more to say later.
Just what first picked my eye though:
> members or so turning up. It was the kind of ppl-talking-over-each-other
> that you have to expect at these sorts of things, and it was up to me to
> force the group to come to a final decision and move on to the next
> point. In the end tho I thought we did pretty well. All constitutional
> changes were passed, and the JLP was disbanded (mainly because none of its
> supporters were there to give a balanced argument).
Some days I vote myself superman, but it doesn't make it so.
It seems pretty ridiculous to me, that there is a portion of ProgSoccers
who are interested in 'pushing their own ideas', whether or not they are
actually well-formed or have a rational basis. This is fed by the 'power
monger' section who spread misinformation because they need to spread
something...
We've had the "Is the JLP a good idea" discussion many, many times. It
was originally suggested by Chris, or at least very quickly taken up by
him, as President. It had wide support. In every meeting I have attended,
I, and others, have convinced the attendees it should and can happen. Of
course, the useful elements of ProgSoc will always obtrude these efforts.
I'm going to make a magical prediction: the ProgSoc you're talking about
won't happen, if we can't even sort out something as simple as this
properly.
What's properly? When you can have a meeting without people, and still make
real efforts to represent them.
Ryan
PS. Constitutions were designed to help the running of a society. If you're
finding them unhelpful, something is wrong.