[rfu-membership] Re: [Rfu-station] Upcoming Code Change

[Tom Garza]

We can perhaps discuss this at our next meeting 
(tonight I believe?) and Gen and I are prepared 
to abide by whatever the group decides. I will 
say in advance that she and I cannot at this time 
alter our present circumstances sufficiently in 
order to strictly adhere to all of the various 
rules and regulations as they currently stand, so 
either an accommodation for non-complying groups 
such as ourselves will need to be made, or else 
we'll have to seek out a third partner in order 
to satisfy WRFUs minimum requirements. I have in 
fact for some time now been making attempts to do 
just that, but as we have wanted to keep this as 
a show by the local Native community, as well as 
for it, it hasn't been easy and I've hitherto 
proven to be unsuccessful.

So it's possible that we'll just have to give up 
the show altogether as I can't, at the moment, 
think of another alternative.

tom g.


At 12:45 PM -0500 10/7/08, Andrew Ó Baoill wrote:
>Tom - this seems a bona fide excuse for not 
>doing re-training right now, though Lavana has a 
>point about the intent of requiring groups. On 
>the other hand, as Lavana also notes, we have 
>various groups which are using 'silent partners' 
>- something I'd like to move away from over time 
>(though in this case Genevieve has been active 
>and is absent temporarily).
>
>Let's look to find a solution that accommodates 
>your group - perhaps noting that Genevieve will 
>undertake training as soon as she's back in 
>town, later this semester or in the Spring? I 
>leave it to the membership group/list to agree 
>on a policy....
>
>Andrew
>
>On Oct 7, 2008, at 9:21 AM, RANDALL R HAWKINS wrote:
>
>>I am copying Andrew and the membeship list with your question, Tom.
>>My understanding of the purpose of the two 
>>people in a programming group policy is that it 
>>fosters a sence of community, and that it makes 
>>it easier for shows to remain on the air 
>>consistently.   If a member is not really here, 
>>that doesn't happen.  That said, I also know 
>>that it is very common for the second person in 
>>a programming group to simply be a silent 
>>partner.  And really how a programming group 
>>works is up to the programming group.  So 
>>having a partner not be here has been an 
>>accepted policy.
>>Can you give us a date that we can check back 
>>with you, and be sure that your partner has 
>>been trained by?  Does that seem reasonable to 
>>everyone else?
>>
>>Of course, the membership due will need to be 
>>paid for them, whether they are here or not. 
>>Perhaps that is one of the forms I will be 
>>picking up today?
>>
>>Lavana
>>
>>--- On Tue, 10/7/08, Tom 
>>Garza <<mailto:tgarza at precisiongraphics.com>tgarza at precisiongraphics.com> wrote:
>>
>>From: Tom Garza 
>><<mailto:tgarza at precisiongraphics.com>tgarza at precisiongraphics.com>
>>Subject: Re: Fwd: [Rfu-station] Upcoming Code Change
>>To: <mailto:lrhawkins at sbcglobal.net>lrhawkins at sbcglobal.net
>>Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 9:03 AM
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>my show partner is teaching this semester at a 
>>tribal community college in Minnesota, and has 
>>no reasonable way of getting back here to do 
>>the retraining. Given that she also doesn't 
>>come back here and use the studio or broadcast 
>>either (joining me by phone for shows whenever 
>>possible), is the retraining strictly necessary 
>>at this time and in this instance?
>>
>>  thanks
>>
>>tom g  11th Indian
>>
>>
>>>Retraining and membership renewal must be 
>>>completed before the meeting Tues Oct 7 at 8 
>>>pm.  I will be collecting the final batch of 
>>>forms from the office tomorrow and sending a 
>>>list of all shows that have completed their 
>>>training and membership renewals -- and those 
>>>that haven't -- to the meeting tomorrow night. 
>>>The plan is that the code on the studio 
>>>will  be changed and the new code will only be 
>>>sent to those that have completed retraining 
>>>and renewed their memberships.  If everyone in 
>>>your programming group has not completed these 
>>>necessary tasks, an e-mail now with your 
>>>intentions would be helpful.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Lavana
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Rfu-station mailing list
>><mailto:Rfu-station at lists.chambana.net>Rfu-station at lists.chambana.net
>>
>><http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/rfu-station>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/rfu-station
>>
>
>!DSPAM:533,48eba056292291994277429!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/rfu-membership/attachments/20081007/b91d0877/attachment.htm