Active Members host at least one Technical Seminar#286
Active Members host at least one Technical Seminar#286
Conversation
… the academic year
|
Rewording proposal: Diff:
|
| \asubsubsection{Expectations of Active Members} | ||
| Active Members are required to pay dues as stated in \ref{Collection of Dues}, attend all House Meetings and E-Board candidate speeches, and attend at least fifteen of the directorship meetings for each semester in which they are an Active Member. | ||
| They are also expected to sign a copy of the Membership Agreement. | ||
| Active Members should also host at least one Technical Seminar during the academic year. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the phrasing of "...should also host..." seems bad. We should say that they are required to/expected to host a seminar
|
I personally don't like this amendment, because it will inevitably lead to people hosting low effort seminars just to fill the requirement, and i would much rather have people host seminars because they actually want to rather than just to fill a requirement |
shaeespring
left a comment
shaeespring
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry... Pedantry. But also I don't know if you meant this change to be semesterly or yearly
| Active Members are required to pay dues as stated in \ref{Collection of Dues}, attend all House Meetings and E-Board candidate speeches, and attend at least fifteen of the directorship meetings for each semester in which they are an Active Member. | ||
| They are also expected to sign a copy of the Membership Agreement. | ||
| They are expected to sign a copy of the Membership Agreement. | ||
| Active Members must host at least one Technical Seminar. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because this goes after the first sentence (where at the end of the sentence it defines the time restraints) this should have a time attached to it, semesterly or yearly
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Otherwise, similar to the membership agreement, you would only have to do one throughout your entire time as an active member. Which, if that's your goal, then I think this can be approved. But I don't remember that being your goal
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh we've talked about this before that it means during the academic year.
shaeespring
left a comment
shaeespring
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i lied. You meant yearly and have it as yearly.
|
Was informed that you are making more changes. Just so that I can remember that it's not ready for review, I am changing this to a draft PR Mark it as ready for review when it's ready, that way I know it can go on the slides. As a reminder, there are only two House Meetings left, one of them being Elections on Saturday (not sure if that's official but it's probable) |
|
I think that my commit completely broke somewhere along the merges... yikes |
Co-authored-by: Shaela Spring <shaeespring@gmail.com>
| \item Host at least one Technical seminar or pass a Technical major project | ||
| \end{enumerate} | ||
|
|
||
| Active Members must participate in at least one major project during the academic year. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be a part of the list?
There's a lot of text related to this one but it feels weird to say "here's all the stuff you should do" anyway "also you have to do this"
| \item To maintain records of the goals defined by each previous E-Board | ||
| \item To act as a Judicial Board as defined in \ref{Judicial} | ||
| \item To review major projects as defined in \ref{Expectations of Active Members} | ||
| \item To review \ref{Major Project}s as defined in \ref{Expectations of Active Members} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| \item To review \ref{Major Project}s as defined in \ref{Expectations of Active Members} | |
| \item To review major projects as defined in \ref{Major Project} |
See above
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The ref should still be Major Project, as major projects are defined in their own section now. Lmk if you think otherwise
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also resolving comments should really be done by a reviewer, so that other people trying to approve can see if things were actually fixed sufficiently. I get it's easy to see it as a checklist but it really does help reviewers
5 participants
This adds a requirement to being an Active Member, which is that every Active Member must host at least one Technical Seminar during the academic year, and will be evaluated as part of a Membership Eval.
Common concerns and solutions:
C: "Some people are really averse to presenting."
S: Presentations are part of the curriculum for most if not all majors at RIT, as well as your professional career. This is GREAT practice for those times, since attendance will likely be 10-20 people, which is less than your average RIT class. It is also much less pressure than that of a job. It's not unfair to ask members of house to do this if they are expected to do it in class and/or in the field, and it's great practice for those who are averse to presenting.
(I'll add more as I see more concerns)
Check one:
Summary of change(s):