Naturally I rushed off to draw a diagram. And I have listed below the current Beaker committee structure.
A few things spring to mind. The first is that we can see the source of much aggravation between the various sub-committees within the Beaker committee structure. To take just one example - where do we draw the line between a barbecue (social) and a bonfire (worship)? If potatoes are roasted on the bonfire, does that make it a barbecue? It may sound like a pedantic point but these fine details have caused punch-ups in the past as everyone tries to establish where the boundaries lie.
We did experiment with some combined sub-committees - a group that combined members of the Little Pebbles management group, and the All Age planning sub-committee, for example. However in that instance it turned out that the members of both groups were the same - so we struggled to understand who was speaking in which capacity. Likewise, the Bingo and Flower Arranging groups are identical in membership - so they have to wear different hats so they remember what they're supposed to talk about.
In summary, we now have enough committees to ensure that anyone who really wanted to, could go to a meeting every day for a month. So I have reported back to Archdruid that yes, we do indeed have enough committees.
I'm horrified to learn that no-one thought to set up a committee to investigate this question.
ReplyDeleteWhat, no subcommittee for Seating Layout? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is quite likely that some people are members of several - maybe even all - committees, I think Burton should consider the possibility that there are some who are on no committee at all, and therefore there needs to be at least one more committee, one for people who are reluctant to join committees. Then everyone will have an equal opportunity to participate.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't forget the need for a special committee for would-be committee people who can't attend current committees because they are only free to attend at times when no committees are meeting.
ReplyDeleteAnd no Platypus Duck Committee...? Strange.
ReplyDeletePlatypuses would have required more of a working group, while they were classified. And now, as they say, the science is "in". Except for a few duck-bill deniers.
ReplyDeletePlatypuses would have required more of a working group, while they were classified. And now, as they say, the science is "in". Except for a few duck-bill deniers.
ReplyDeleteAre committees and working groups the same thing? Can we one of each to investigate that question?
ReplyDeleteYou might as well be in the Church of England....
ReplyDeleteI'd have said the Methodists might be more accurate on this one.
ReplyDelete