[Businessmtg] Why we're being asked to approve the web site as altered

[Jerry]

Biz-Pals,

This Business Meeting (BM) is the sole source for forming ASP Group Consciences. Further, since ASP is now officially "owned" by its members, the BM is the body which controls content of ASP's official documents, web site and such.

Our trusted servants are authorized to administer those parts of ASP's workings within the boundaries of the previews the Business Committee has authorized them by Group Conscience.

There came a time when a new webmaster had program/computer-related difficulties which resulted in using a different website program. In redoing the website using the new program some changes were made to content. When the webmaster completed her work members were asked something along the lines of, "How's it look?"

Apparently her intention was to ask for input on appearance AND content changes. However some members took things literally and took the question to refer to appearance ONLY.

Then a member suggested that a poll be taken - what we would now call a Straw Poll. From what I can tell the informal agreement was, "Looks good." The problem we are attempting to resolve, without being fully informed, is whether that poll was an official Group Conscience acceptance of the changes to appearance only, or to the appearance AND not clearly disclosed content changes.

The confusion that existed about the question posed resulted in some votes in affirmation of the appearance having been counted as affirmation of content changes as well. Also, some members who responded favorably to the poll contest the claim by others that the "new" web site content was approved by an official Group Conscience rather than by a non-binding, informal or straw poll.

It's important to note that the original web site content was indisputably accepted by a Group Conscience. Whether the current, altered content is approved by GC or not is what is in dispute. The LA and others have claimed the changes are a Done Deal. Others disagree and want the BM to resolve this.

Now we are presented with an agenda which seeks to ordain the questionable poll as a Group Conscience regarding these past changes in content without a change-by-change discussion prior to voting, and once (if) approval is had to then require all future changes to gain BM approval prior to making alterations.

In conclusion,

~ I say that it has always been the case that copy and content changes to ASP's documents including the web page require a fully informed Group Conscience affirmation by the Business Meeting prior to publication.
~ I further believe that the confusion caused by the wording of the informal/straw poll made an informed decision impossible and resulted in a false interpretation of the answers to that poll.
~ I believe our starting point for all changes to ASP-owned documents begin with the originally approved copy content to include the original web site content as it was written.
~ Lastly, the third item on this agenda should be rewritten to make sure it is clear that any and all changes to the original documents and web content require clear and unquestionable approval by the Business Committee - AND that this item should be moved from the third item on the arbitrary agenda sequence to the first. Should this discussion result in an affirmed motion written as suggested here the other agenda items would be moot.

If, however, the first two items were to gain eventual approval after discussion, these disputed changes made under the influence of confusion and uncertainty would be locked in in perpetuity.

I, personally, would prefer that we look at the web site changes one by one, discuss them fully, and decide the fate of each by clear consensus. The footwork could be performed by a special committee or though force which would bring their conclusions to the Business Committee for final discussion and vote.

In service,
Jerry
-