there must have been a better way to do this...

The following from the corporate seneschal's report of the latest SCA board meeting left me scratching my head:

Motion by Gabrielle Underwood to revoke and deny the membership of Clarence Womble (Eoin Mac Lochlainn) effective January 26, 2007. Seconded by Jeff Brown. In favor: None. Opposed: Jeff Brown, Heather English, Tom Hughes, Hal Simon, Gabrielle Underwood. Recused: Shawn Reed. Motion failed.

Motion by Gabrielle Underwood to revoke and deny the membership of Clarence Womble (Eoin Mac Lochlainn) effective January 27, 2007. Seconded by Jeff Brown. In favor: Jeff Brown, Heather English, Tom Hughes, Hal Simon, Gabrielle Underwood, Opposed: None. Recused: Shawn Reed. Chairman Williams exercised his option to vote and did so in favor of the motion. Motion carried.

I had to read it a couple times to spot the difference. They changed the effective date. That's all. There has to have been a better way to do that, no? Doesn't standard parliamentary procedure permit both amending and withdrawing a motion on the table?

When I read the first one my reaction was "wow, the case for this was so weak that even the person making the motion recanted". But (and noting that we do not have access to the actual discussion), that appears not to have been the case.

this morning's d'var torah (Vayakheil-Pekudei)

For as long as I can remember I have been a precise, detail-oriented person. When writing I strive to say exactly what I mean, particularly in the area of technical specifications and law. A misplaced comma can completely change the meaning of a sentence, and a poor choice of words can create ambiguity. I'm a nit-picker; I can't stand those sorts of errors in documents that really matter. (Don't worry; I'm not critiquing your casual email.)

I know this isn't a common trait; I've seen people's reactions. When I was on the board of this congregation I could recognize the concealed sighs when I said I had a question about a written policy. A realtor I was working with was not happy when I held up a house closing because the math looked wrong. But it's important to get these things right.

Now, this sort of thing can be taken to extremes; there is such a thing as worrying too much about details that ultimately don't matter. For years this has been my attitude toward several parshiyot at the end of Exodus. We get two weeks of painstaking details about how to build the mishkan, and then a break for the golden calf, and then two more parshiyot recording the actual building of the mishkan, with mostly the same text as before but with the verbs changed from "you will" to "they did". This seems like a lot of tedious detail and repetition. What's the point?

( Read more... )

PSA: pet-food recall

Pet deaths prompt recall of pet food. The recall list includes brands I've heard of, like Iams and Science Diet, along with lots of store brands. Fortunately for me, Giant Eagle's store brand (Daily Choice) is not on the list. (I'm not concerned so much about unopened cans; that's just money and hassle. But if they were on the list I'd have to worry about stuff I've already fed my guys; it's not like I keep used cans around to check lot numbers.)

Thanks to kayre for the alert.

random bits

( Read more... )