Post by marks on Oct 26, 2015 0:57:29 GMT
Leo, Dorothy, and All,
I whole heartedly agree with Leo's suggestion in a recent email that there should be a discussion forum as part of the GLA web site (in fact I've mentioned this to a couple of SG residents over the last few days). I do believe that it should be password protected and moderated. However, I think it's very important that the moderator not be a board member. Under the current climate of extreme distrust, having a board member as moderator would lead at least some folks to be suspicious that submitted posts were being censored. I also think that having a board member as moderator would very likely limit participation by board members. Hopefully, with an outside moderator, board members would participate as land owners and not as board members. Again, in the current climate, it seems unlikely that board members would participate, but possibly in the future assuming some calming of the current situation, board members would be willing to contribute their thoughts and ideas as landowners as part of a discussion that could lead to a some level of consensus.
In my mind, one potential benefit of a GLA based discussion board would be to minimize the need for extended discussions as part of board meetings. Should that occur, board meetings might become more productive and efficient. As I've said {I think...it was in an earlier email, but my memory isn't what it used to be :-) }, having a 3+ hour meeting (e.g. the Oct. meeting) where 2 reports got approved and one action was voted on strikes me as extremely inefficient and I see that as a problem both for landowners and for board members.
Mark Seaver
I whole heartedly agree with Leo's suggestion in a recent email that there should be a discussion forum as part of the GLA web site (in fact I've mentioned this to a couple of SG residents over the last few days). I do believe that it should be password protected and moderated. However, I think it's very important that the moderator not be a board member. Under the current climate of extreme distrust, having a board member as moderator would lead at least some folks to be suspicious that submitted posts were being censored. I also think that having a board member as moderator would very likely limit participation by board members. Hopefully, with an outside moderator, board members would participate as land owners and not as board members. Again, in the current climate, it seems unlikely that board members would participate, but possibly in the future assuming some calming of the current situation, board members would be willing to contribute their thoughts and ideas as landowners as part of a discussion that could lead to a some level of consensus.
In my mind, one potential benefit of a GLA based discussion board would be to minimize the need for extended discussions as part of board meetings. Should that occur, board meetings might become more productive and efficient. As I've said {I think...it was in an earlier email, but my memory isn't what it used to be :-) }, having a 3+ hour meeting (e.g. the Oct. meeting) where 2 reports got approved and one action was voted on strikes me as extremely inefficient and I see that as a problem both for landowners and for board members.
Mark Seaver
