| |
In lugnet.org.us, Matthew Miller writes:
> > Rules need to be flexible, we have all seen unjust situations played out.
> > Maybe you should create a guest member status where an under 18 or such
> > could be 'signed in' by a board member for that meeting.
> > We all share the same major interest in the end, and all cop the same flak
> > from friends etc, it's just unfortunate, because both Shiri and NELUG would
> > gain from interacting at meetings.
>
> That I don't doubt. I'm concerned about consequences for situations where
> the candidate's maturity/merits/whatever might not be so clear. And of
> course this isn't a decision that I make alone -- other people have other
> concerns.
So what are you going to do when some 21 year old demonstrates the maturity of
a 3 year old? As far as the maturity issue goes, all you're doing by
specifying an age is reducing the number of potential conflicts, you can't
eliminate them. So why not allow exceptions to the rule (which then still lets
you eliminate most of the conflicts because the underage person isn't presumed
acceptable, instead they must earn their position).
I'd also encourage the group to re-examine the legal issues. I strongly
suspect that you could hold at least some meetings which minors could attend
without exposing yourself to any significant liability.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) That was the one part of your post I was replying to. I don't think I removed anything relevant to my reply or that would characterize what you're saying. If I did, I apologize. (...) That I don't doubt. I'm concerned about consequences for (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
258 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
