> In previous mail, Ryan Shelswell wrote:
> I would say tho that the main reason for that was
> the fact that those in attendace (including myself) didn't really
> understand all the mumbo-jumbo about it, not to mention being fed up
> with all the bickering about it that's been involved.
>
> I think we should give the JLP concept a bit of a rest so we can take a
> more objective view when we re-consider it. It'd also help to have the
> Executive tackle the sorts of problems the JLP was designed to handle
> for a while, so we can compare the two and choose the "lesser evil".
The JLP was never allowed to operate. How can you compare? I would
suggest a true comparison would be to let the JLP operate, and then
see if everyone thinks it won't work. Does anyone have a good reason
that we can't try that?
I agree the bickering is a problem... but to let this stop things
from happening is crazy! If there are real concerns, they can be
aired open-forum (like here). Other than that, the attitude is to
say 'we decided to do it, so let's get on with it'.
> > PS. Constitutions were designed to help the running of a society. If you're
> > finding them unhelpful, something is wrong.
>
> It wasn't the Constitution I found unhelpful, it was the membership who
> knew what I was doing wrong and didn't bother pointing it out to me (let
> alone offer solutions).
I didn't say the constitution was the problem! It's only a piece of paper!
BTW We could always have a working party meet to decide the changes, then
call a GM to ratify them.
Ryan