[10039] in APO-L
Re: Something to be considered in 1996
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SMS)
Sun Nov 6 18:10:02 1994
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 15:10:06 -0800
Reply-To: SMS <skinner@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
From: SMS <skinner@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
>My main point is that if something does not pass at two conventions in a
>row, then it should "cool off" for a convention. If it is brought up
>again, after the cool off period, then the old arguments would not be
>brought up as prevently due to the fact that most brothers graduate
>within a five year time period. It would get a fresh start when
>reconsidered without the ghosts of the last convention.
But given the fact that there can be nearly 50% turn-over during a two year
period (and probably much higher for voting delegates) we would be
eliminating the option of a new group to consider a particular change. I
don't see how this can ever be in the best interest of an organization that
is run by convention every two years. In LFS, Seth.
"There is a destiny that makes us brothers, none goes his way alone. All
that we send into the lives of others comes back into our own."
-Edwin Markham
*Seth M. Skinner, aka NatureBoy, aka "That One Guy"
*Zeta Psi, University of Oregon
*Voting Delegate, Nationals Coordinator, Internet Liason, HandyMan,
Customer Service Representative, Coat Rack, Apprentice Computer
Counsultant, PunMeister
