May 20 General Meeting - Agenda

[kristin]

My "attacks" were not personally about you. They were not personally about anyone. In fact, I'd like to know, precisely, what lines from my posts were a) attacks, or b) personal to anyone in particular. I have yet to attack anyone. Trust me, when I do, you'll know.

I did say I knew it wasn't personal, but that it *was* about things I was doing. You are very good at writing, and I can't point to a single line and call it an attack, but the overall tone of your posts was not a productive, helpful, respectful, informative message. It was very negative and condescending.

To try to give one example that is a little more specific I'll mention you saying "Floating meeting dates, non-specific agendas, voting on issues without the pre-decided one week pre-posting, etc, are risking this stabilty and predictability in how our community functions." The meeting dates were changed for very good reasons, the agenda was as specific as I had information for, and the issues that I knew needed to be voted on were there. I felt like I had done things appropriately, yet I was getting scolded, and I haven't even officially started the position yet.

[arclight]

It's earlier, I'm less tired, and I've only had one beer (most of tonight was spent on homemade Raspberry Chipotle BBQ sauce - too much orange; I need to fix that.)

I want to clear up a few things from my post that were obscured by my violation of all three posting rules: don't reply when tired, angry, or drunk.

My only Wes-specific piece of my rant was the part about citing rules of procedure without giving a reference for them; that there's (apparently) no single easily-accessible document containing these rules is a separate (and IMO much more important) problem. I don't have a problem with people being sticklers for the rules; I have a problem with rules being scattered like air crash debris across the forums and holding people accountable to them without the benefit of an NTSB.

Actually, Wes doesn't do a lot of shit-talking about the AIC, at least that I've heard (he may be cantankerous and curmudgeonly, but he's not a shit-talker.) The source of that part of the rant comes from other improvisors that I hang out with on a regular basis. Maybe even Mo; I don't remember, though honestly I don't think the AIC pops up on her radar unless I'm ranting about it. Then she complains about my complaining...

Regardless, I still think that we have a good crew of people working on the AIC. People have their own projects and everyone who's tried to do more than rehearse and perform is likely suffering from some amount of fatigue and bitterness. I don't want people to stop goading the AIC forward to becoming a really useful resource, but I am tired of hearing crappy comments about the organization from people who don't bother to follow up with something constructive. You wouldn't even be in an independent troupe, get stage time, or even a door split had you been here in 2003, my friend...

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to yell at kids to get off my lawn.

[Wesley]

Are there any notes, decisions, discussions, action items, carry-overs, red clouds, brown papers, pain points, or halo effects from the meeting?

[kristin]

Sorry for taking so long to get this out. I would have preferred to have them up sooner, but I had one of my busiest work weeks ever. Even my evenings in hotel rooms I was doing work-work, so I didn’t have time to properly do this until I was on the plane on my way home tonight.

I don’t know if there is a time that minutes are supposed to be out by, but if there isn't, then for future weeks like this I’d like to say I’ll have them out at the absolute latest by a week, trying to aim before Friday, ideally by Tuesday (assuming Sunday meetings).

Posting the minutes in a new thread of happiness and joy.