[committee] M12s criticizing *OX

[Frames]

 >Firstly, to Frames.
 >if you really challenged the validity of the abstention from a vote in 
this committee meeting whilst being perfectly ok

>with abstentions from previous meetings (the immediate past meeting included) then I wonder if the populace who elected
>you can rely on you to effectively enforce their wants when push comes to shove on a contentious issue. This was a
>seriously dick move on behalf of yourself and committee shouldn't have allowed this. Convention is a VERY common thing >within UCC (see the lack of Wheel and Door in the constitution for example) and to then throw this out of the window
>shows a complete lack of respect for both Rowan and the wider membership.

To clarify (as the minutes we unclear, so i see how you gained the wrong impression).
[RVS] mentioned to me after the vote, the he didn't think that that votes worked that way.
I had a laptop open to our policies at the time, so I was all, "Hmm better check that".
Upon reading the constitution, I realised he was correct.
So I brought this to committee's attention.
In doing so I suggested that committee might like to interpret the constitution to match out precedent,
however a naive reading did says that. (Since then we have perhaps found clarifications in Roberts Rules of Order).

I did this not out of disrespect, but out of Respect for Rowan, and his right to have a fair hearing.
I personally was very in-favour of removing him from door.
I'm glad you brought this oversight in the minutes to light, so I could correct the misconception.
I should also correct your misconception that I am on committee. I am merely a interested outsider, like yourself.

>Anyway, this rant won't be accepted and I can already feel the bitching on IRC and other places about how I should shut >the fuck up. I just hope those people realise that I'm far from the only one who thinks these things.
Your rant was redirected to committee@, which was felt to be a more appriate channel.


---
Frames [*OX]
Wheel Member