On 2018-04-01 17:16, Niklas Hambüchen wrote: [--snip--]
For everybody's convenience, I here are the key points:
* When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committees as large as possible.
* Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
Yes, but what about the children?
* Ask endless questions or engage in long correspondence about such orders. Quibble over them when you can.
Well, my story begins in nineteen dickety-two...
* Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
That last comma should be "and".
* Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
I don't we ever decided upon that rule. Can someone re-check the archives?
* Advocate "caution". Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
No real isssue with this, but I feel it might be a bit rash.
* Be worried about the propriety of any decision - raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.
I definite agree that we need guidelines in this area and I propose that we form a committe to evaluate this proposal and further counter-proposals that may arise. I'm thinking something along the lines of the Literature Prize winner at https://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig2012 Regards,