Resolving an Office Scheduling Issue

[Guest Jimm]

I would like your all's take on the following scenario:

 

Consider that 4 individuals are assigned permanent work in a remote company shop.   The 4 individuals work schedules to keep the shop open 24/7/365.  The company policy and worker's contractual policy is that the schedule they work is determined by the individuals assigned there, as long as it meets the requirements to stay staffed 24/7/365, and that for each day worked, there is an equal day off, and that each day's "shift" is 12 hrs long.

To meet this scheduling requirement, the individuals have had the following schedule in place for quite some time:

#1 works 7 days 12-hr shifts in a row, then has 7 days off (7am to 7pm)

#2 works 7 nights 12-hr shifts in a row, then has 7 nights off (7 pm to 7 am)

Meanwhile, #3 and #4 are not scheduled for 7 days.

At the end of the 7 days of work, #3 comes in to work the day shift, and #4 comes in to work the night shift, while #1 and #2 start their week off.

When that week ends, #1 returns but instead of working the day shift, he moves to the night shift, and #2 works the day shift, so that each week of work over time alternates a week of day, off a week, a week of nights, off a week, etc. as the schedule perpetuates.

This schedule was established to accommodate two individuals who commuted in from distant locations to work their weekly shift, by reducing the effect of the 24 hr "dead time" in between going from day shifts to nights, allowing the commuter to head home 12 hrs sooner after his work week ended each time.

All balances out equally between the workers in that manner and that is the schedule they all agreed to between themselves.....

 

Then, one individual quits (#3), and the company hires a new-hire individual (N) to fill the vacancy #3 vacancy. (#3N)

Also, at this time, #4 (a commuter) is on his off week and away

 

So, when this occurs, being a locally based individual, #1 believes this is a good opportunity to change the schedule from a 7 day, off, 7 night, off, etc type of schedule, to a 3 day, 4 night, 7 off, type of schedule.   This type of schedule requires two individuals to work 3 day, 4 night, 7 off schedule, and the other two to work a 4 day, 3 night, 7 off schedule, as it perpetuates in the week (two starting their shifts on a Monday, the other two starting there shifts on a Thursday).   This schedule meets the company and worker's contractual policy and is a common schedule at other remotely located company shops, which were established and agreed to by the individuals at those shops.  

Being a local, #1 likes this 3/4/7 type of schedule better and asks #2 the following question:  "Do you mind if I change the schedule from 7 straight, to 3/4/7"?  

#2 responds "I have no objection"

Then, #1 asks the new-hire #3N the same question:  "Do you mind if I change the schedule from 7 straight to 4/3/7?"  [someone has to work the 4/3/7 schedule]

The new-hire #3N responds, "I'll work whatever schedule you guys have, I don't care."

#2 is not informed of any of this, is likely not in favor of this, and has been excluded from all of this up to this point.

That's the background ................

 

Now the parliamentary issue.   "The workers at each remote shop location will determine their schedule in accordance with company the company requirements that it be one day off for each day scheduled, and that the shifts are 12 hrs long, and that they conform to either the 7 straight and 7 off, or the 3/4/7 (4/3/7) scheduling format".  The company doesn't care which schedule is used as long as the schedule is filled 24/7/365 equally divided by the workers at the shop.

 

Did #1 secure the majority of his peers to change the schedule from his fellow workers from a 7 straight 7 off type of schedule, to a 3-day/4-night/7-off (4/3/7) type of schedule?

 

Some believe #1 did secure the majority decision already of the group to change the schedule.

Some do not believe #1 did not secured the majority decision of the group to change the schedule.

 

Your comments are desired regarding this not-so-grand, but important nonetheless office politic scenario!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Jimm]

#2 is not informed of any of this, is likely not in favor of this, and has been excluded from all of this up to this point.

 

Oops, I meant #4 is not informed of the change and is likely not in favor of this and has been excluded from all of this up to this point.

Sorry for the confusion, if any!

 

Jimm

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Robert's Rules apply to deliberative assemblies. I don't see what your work rules have to do with parliamentary procedure. For what it's worth, "majority" means "more than half."

[Guest Jimm]

The Company workrules demand that it be decided among the workers themselves, making it a small but formal deliberative assembly in the shop.

And, I know a majority means "more than half", and that was the question, did he have more than half of his fellow office workers to effect a schedule change here?

IOW, did he actually have a majority of his fellow shop workers to decide the schedule (change) or didn't he (as required by office rules which require a deliberative democratic process to resolve)?

Thanks in advance,

 

Jimm

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

In order to determine a majority vote that is in any way in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order (RONR), your workers would need to hold an actual meeting, to which all the workers are invited. Someone would need to be elected to preside at the meeting, and someone else would need to be elected to serve as the secretary and take minutes. This would be in the nature of what RONR calls a "mass meeting." RONR specifically notes that such meetings "frequently operate with no formally adopted rules, upon the assumption that the meeting will proceed according to the common parliamentary law . . ." (RONR pg. 546, ll. 1-4).

At such a meeting, common parliamentary law would hold that the vote of a majority of those present and voting would constitute a majority vote of the assembly.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

34 minutes ago, Guest Jimm said:

Q. Did #1 secure the majority of his peers to change the schedule from his fellow workers

from a 7 straight 7 off type of schedule,

to a 3-day/4-night/7-off (4/3/7) type of schedule?

No.

Asking a subset of individuals, and not asking some individuals (!), will not result in any official decision of the "shop".

To date, no official decision has been made by the "shop".

All you have are verbal opinions -- and no vote, no minutes, no documentation, that anyone has been informed of anything, or has committed to anything.

***

>> #2 is not informed of any of this, is likely not in favor of this, and has been excluded from all of this up to this point.

This concerns me. -- You are not using parliamentary procedure, once you start selecting "voters" per one's personal bias, to render binding decisions on behalf of the organization.

Since you are excluding people, then your question isn't a parliamentary question. You've left that realm.

[Guest Jimm]

Further information:

 

A deliberative assembly is a gathering of members (of any kind of collective) who use parliamentary procedure to make decisions.

 

Each of the shop's workers here have equal stake in the matter, and an equal vote to resolve the issue between only them.   They all have equal rights in the decision making and the outcome of any such decision.   That, by definition, is a deliberative assembly, isn't it.   Nobody here has decision making authority which trumps the collective rights of the whole.

It is a matter of parliamentary procedure to resolve.  And, there is some evidence to say that of all the parliamentary protocols to use, the latest revision of Robert's Rules of Order are the authority procedures to use (if there needs to be a particular parliamentary authority to choose).

 

So, despite the particulars in the example for this scenario, the exercise itself is a generic parliamentary question here:

 

Does #1 have the majority of his collective gathering of fellow workers to change the schedule if #2 days he has "no objection to #1 proposal", and #3 says "I don't care either way", and #4 has not been consulted at all?

 

That is a generic question essentially for this parliamentary procedure discussion.

Thanks in advance,

 

Jimm

 

----------

btw, to the forum webmasters:  I like the image assembler verification over that character scramble a lot.   It was way too hard to get past those other gatekeepers!

[Guest Jimm]

45 minutes ago, Greg Goodwiller said:

At such a meeting, common parliamentary law would hold that the vote of a majority of those present and voting would constitute a majority vote of the assembly.

Greg,

Thank for your comments.   So, up to now, given the facts to this point, ignoring the fact that #4 has not participated at all yet, what was the vote of those already involved?

Does #1 have 3 YES votes to change the schedule?

Does #1 have only his vote to change the schedule?

 

How do you consider the "votes" of #2 and #3 at this point, given their responses to #1's questions to them independently?    If #1 calls them on the phone, independently, and their response to #1's question are essentially "I have no objection if you want to change the schedule"?   Has #1 fairly handled the situation between the collective?

 

Where does the "vote" stand if  #4 is excluded from the decision at this particular point?   Can #1 claim he already owns the collective's majority "vote" since #2 and #3 said they have no objection if #1 changes the schedule?

Where does the "vote" stand if #4 is opposed to the schedule change?   Would #1 have the collective's majority "vote" to change the schedule given these facts?

 

That is the fundamental parliamentary question here?   Just the 4 of them in a shop setting, not necessarily all the "strict" formalities of a formal meeting needed, just the fundamental parliamentary protocols satisfied informally between the collective group to ensure it is fairly settled between them.

 

Jimm

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Guest Jimm said:

A deliberative assembly is a gathering of members (of any kind of collective) who use parliamentary procedure to make decisions.

 

A deliberative assembly is a gathering of members, in one place, able to see and hear each other, who will remain members even if they disagree with the decision.  What you've described doesn't fit that description, in my opinion.  The problem is that opinions change when people hear something discussed, which is exactly why approaching each individually doesn't get you a deliberative assembly, and hence the rules of RONR are inapplicable.  What you're doing is more applicable to a decision by a committee to include an item in their report without meeting, which requires unanimous agreement.  

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

I concur with the previous comments from Godelfan. A deliberative assembly is a gathering of individuals where all can at the very least hear each other, and discuss the matters being decided. That is not a matter of "'strict' formalities of a formal meeting." It is the most basic requirement for what constitutes a meeting. And a vote taken without the opportunity for common deliberation is in no way the action of a "deliberative assembly." 

Schedule and hold a meeting. Since you have no rules to follow anyway, make it a conference call if you need to. But make sure everyone has an opportunity to attend. Elect a presider and a secretary. Then have someone present make a motion, discuss it, and vote. If at that point there are more "yes" votes than "no" votes, the motion is adopted. If there are equal numbers of votes, or if there are more "no" votes than "yes" votes, the motion fails.

 

[Guest Jimm]

Godelfan & Greg:

 

Thank you for your comments.

Would you agree that by virtue of their prescribed written workrules in that "the workers at each shop shall determine the appropriate schedules of service", their existence in that shop should be a deliberative assembly, since the decision between them is a collective decision that affects each worker who has equal say in the matter, and therefore meaning their handling of this matters should also have been done as a deliberative assembly, yes?   It seems you two feel that that their efforts so far have not be that of a deliberative assembly, even though the workrule contract between them as a group should have been handled as if they were?   Is that a fair assessment of your positions so far?

Interestingly, some followers in my company believe #1 has established a majority already by securing two opinions of indifference to his proposal.  For instance, here is one person't rationale of onlookers from other shops watching this carefully:

To the other's who refuse to actually READ the [discourse]:  #1 stated THREE TIMES that he has sought the opinion of at least 2 other shop mates (a majority when adding #1's vote) and that "they don't care." That is a vote, not an abstaintion! They voted by allowing #1 to do whatever he wanted, And it's NOT #1, as the words put into his mouth by others, "my way or the highway." [#1] asked, [#2 and #3] replied. Simple as that....an I/A/W the shop [workrules]. Move on already. 

 

Assuming their work contract at the shop require the four of them to have equally weighted say in the schedule, and that a schedule already exists, Is the above  a proper rationale if the workers at each shop have equally weight to determine the appropriate schedule of service they utilize at their shop??   

 

This shop is one of many in the company, so the issue becomes important to an even larger audience when the way this shop handles since it will become a potential precedent for future dealings.  Its really not a company issue, since the workers won the right to handle this at each shop fairly among themselves. and where the company management stays out of it.

Basically, it has not yet been commented on whether #2 and #3 have technically abstained, or if they have endorsed #1's want to change it, as the comment above asserts.

 

Again, thanks in advance,

 

Jimm 

 

[Joshua Katz]

Question 1:  You ask if, given that the rules are as they are, the decision should be made at a deliberative assembly.  To this, I don't have much of an answer.  My personal preference is yes, because I happen to believe that the definition was given for a reason - i.e. it facilitates reaching fair decisions, and other processes tend not to.  But that's not a parliamentary opinion, just a personal opinion about parliamentary procedure.  What I can say, though, is that I, and other parliamentarians, can be of very little to no use about decisions made outside of one, since none of the rules we study would apply.

Question 2:  Is "whatever you want" good enough to count as an affirmative vote?  To this, I have even less of an answer, and the reason why relates to question 1.  I have no idea how to interpret things said outside of a deliberative assembly since, as I mentioned above, no rules of parliamentary procedure apply.  In RONR, that would not be a vote.  But you haven't conducted a vote, you conducted conversations - maybe that sort of statement is good enough to satisfy a majority requirement in a conversation.  You're in an area where there are, and can be, no real rules, so we can't provide much guidance.  

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

I concur with my colleague. You are essentially attempting to apply parliamentary terminology to settings which do not qualify as parliamentary settings. So I agree with your first statement that your company's rules should result in a deliberative assembly being convened to make the decision. It is unfortunate that the company doesn't give some guidance as to how that should occur. Their rules could be amended, for example, to state that a meeting for such a decision shall be convened whenever requested by at least one employee, with the most senior employee in the chair, and the next most senior employee as secretary, and the meeting shall be run in accordance with the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Original poster "Jimm":

Do not confuse:

(a.) a "serial meeting", where one-on-one face time with individual members results in a private exchange of information.

vs.

(b.) a "deliberative assembly", where:

   (1.) 100% of the members (!!) have been given proper notice of the meeting;

   (2.) the deliberations are aurally simultaneous;

   (3.) a decision is reach by majority vote (or a two-thirds vote, as the parliamentary circumstance, or special rules of order, may allow).

***

You do not have a deliberative assembly. You had conducted a serial meeting, which failed at simultaneous aural communication, and which failed to include voting members.

Because of these two factors, your "decision" is null and void, under strict application of Robert's Rules of Order.

And, isn't "Robert's Rules of Order" the standard by which you had asked your original question?

[Guest Jimm]

Kim & Greg,

Thank you for your comments.

Yes, I agree there was no deliberative assembly that met.  But, by the workrules presented and by another agreement of the workers, it seems they should have functioned as a deliberative assembly to resolve the shop question about changing the schedule.

If you assume that each shop worker were equal partners, and that there was not one holding more weight than another in the decision, and that the mandate was that the schedule be determined by the shop workers themselves, then it should have been resolved as such.   These workers are part of a unionized organization that negotiated a contract allowing them to have such office rights (to determine their schedule).   And, the union constitution mandates that the latest edition of Robert Rules be used in meetings.

 

But, the problem here is, they didn't have a meeting.   And, by not having a meeting, they are claiming they don't need to follow Robert's Rules.

 

So, even if they had had a meeting here (conference call), and the 4 of them entertained the motion to change the schedule put by #1, and #2 and #3 says they "don't care".   Would that have earned #1 the majority, as some are claiming, because #2 and #3 don't care that #1 changes the schedule?   That is the issue, really, about the decision, meeting or not. 

Some claim that #2 and #3 essentially abstained here, making the vote tied between #1's yes, and #4's no.   Therefore, the schedule should not be changed. 1-yea 1-nay (2-abstain)

Others claim that #2 and #3 essentially voted to give #1 permission to change the schedule since they "didn't care" if he did, earning #1 a clear majority 3-yea 1-nay

 

I understand that what they have done till now has absolutely no resemblance to fair parliamentary procedure IAW Roberts Rules of Order.   But, if the members were suppose to handle this matter as complete equals between them, then that means they are a deliberative assembly by definition and SHOULD HAVE handled it as such.  

I accept the fact that what they have done so far was far from any rules of order under Robert's Rules, which means that what they have done so far was not in accordance with their mandate to resolve this as a group of equally weighted voting members.  The union constitution give each member the right to vote in a meeting.  They apparently skipped the meeting, but somehow made a decision already...(?)   And, the constitution also requires that "the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order currently entitled Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall apply at all meetings of this Union."   The shop should have functioned as a committee of just themselves.

Therefore, I  agree that what they have have done to date hardly qualifies for a legitimate decision between them if they were suppose to handle this as a body of equal participants.

 

Again, thank you

 

Jimm

[Joshua Katz]

To the argument as to how to count "I don't care" - I have no idea.  Since you're outside of parliamentary procedure anyway, there might be a simple way to determine it, though - ask them.  It won't fix anything, but it could put that argument to rest.  

It won't fix anything because, no matter what they say, we don't actually know how they'd vote at a meeting, since debate sometimes changes people's minds.

[Guest Jimm]

 

2 hours ago, Godelfan said:

It won't fix anything because, no matter what they say, we don't actually know how they'd vote at a meeting, since debate sometimes changes people's minds.

Agreed wholeheartedly!

 

But, it seems to me, at this point, not withstanding the fact they have not had an actual meeting and vote, their "I don't care" are essentially abstentions, since they have expressed an indifference to #1's question to change the schedule.   They didn't respond with a want to change the schedule, or a want to maintain the current schedule,  but a willingness to accept it if it did change.   As it stands currently, they have abstained, in my opinion,   And, if that is a reasonable assessment, then they can neither be counted as being for or against the desire to change the schedule.   #1 is attempting to claim those two positions, currently, as a vote in #1's favor to change the schedule.   That seems to be an unreasonable and unfair conclusion, in addition to the whole proceedings thus far being out-of-order to begin with.

 

I ran this by members of this forum to vet the arguments that will likely ensue when #4 finally learns his workschedule will change drastically and where it was done so without the apparent majority of his coworkers in his shop (one pushing it, one against it, and two clearly indifferent to it either way).   He may have a legitimate (formal) grievance against #1 for change his schedule, given the workrules of the organization and the manner in which it proceeded.

 

Thanks again

 

Jimm

 

 

  

[Guest Nancy the commie]

9 hours ago, Guest Jimm said:

So, even if they had had a meeting here (conference call), and the 4 of them entertained the motion to change the schedule put by #1, and #2 and #3 says they "don't care".   Would that have earned #1 the majority, as some are claiming, because #2 and #3 don't care that #1 changes the schedule?   That is the issue, really, about the decision, meeting or not. 

I think this may be the point (or the crux, I'm not sure which is which, even when I'm sitting on the question).  Your company rules and the associated, agreeing, union rules, are grey-area on deciding -- but they do imply, I'm pretty sure (yes, that means it's my weightless opinion) that issues be deliberatively determined.  I think nobody, not even #1, would assert that a mutually discussed deliberative determination has been reached. -- And apparently (I haven't read your four-member non-existent organization's non-existent bylaws) nor has anyone else. "the workers at each shop shall determine the appropriate schedules of service"

I'm guessing that the change will be cemented, or rejected, when the company says, OK, that's what you guys collectively want, and that gets the job done, and that's fine, so let's go with it.  Incidentally, that's communism, but let that pass, since we've already opened the door to communism by asserting workers's rights as a real thing at all, and me and John Rockefeller have been debating that question for decades (I'm a ragamuffin but keep your damn dollar you supercilious plutocrat with no more college degree than I have, so we are equally unembarrassed on that score).  So if anyone tells the company that a collective decision has been reached, he's lying; if, correspondingly, someone tells the company that three of the four individuals concerned are OK with the change, then technically that's true also.

I'd say, before you go to the company to inform them of the rule change, you should confer with employees #2 and #3, to tell them that #4 was not consulted, and that the question should be deliberated. The crux (or maybe an ancillary crux, since I already said what I think the crux is, so this would be a secondary crux, or an ancillary crux, I better look that stuff up) is that, before the new work rules are cemented, we'd better confirm that #2 and #3 are agreeable -- or not --with the determination's having been made with #4's not having been consulted; particularly, given the fundamental principle of parliamentary deliberation, since #2 and #3 have not heard from #4 at all yet.

[Small DogClub]

If #3 is on the the schedule that #1 wants, and if #3 "doesn't care," -- then why can't #1 just swap shift assignments with #3, if they're both agreeable, and leave the actual schedule rotation alone? Then the schedules of #2 and #4 are left untouched, and #4 would have nothing to complain about.

If #1 had been on the ball and been proactive, he probably could have had himself assigned to the #3 shift assignment before new-hire #3 was hired, and then new-hire #3 could have been hired specifically for the #1 shift assignment.

[Guest Jimm]

2 hours ago, Small DogClub said:

If #3 is on the the schedule that #1 wants, and if #3 "doesn't care," -- then why can't #1 just swap shift assignments with #3, if they're both agreeable, and leave the actual schedule rotation alone? Then the schedules of #2 and #4 are left untouched, and #4 would have nothing to complain about.

Because of the 24 hr break between being on the day shift and going to the night shift doesn't allow the 24 hr schedule coverage to flow.    Two cannot be on the split shift (3 days, 4 nights, off/4 days, 3 nights, off) while the other two are on straight 7 schedules because the result is that someone would have to work a 24 hr shift to fill in the hole in-between and another would have to go from his night shift immediately into a day shift (breaking the statutory 14 hr limit on a shift length).   So, the decision has to be that everyone changes the schedule collectively, or that everyone stay on the current schedule collectively to maintain the 24/7/365 schedule coverage.  Trying to have half the shop work the straight 7 and the other half work the split day/night schedule results in an overlapping of the shifts somewhere.  Once, one worker could work nothing but days/ and the other nothing but nights, making it possible to alternate the shift patterns two straight weeks, and two alternating weeks.  But,unfortunately, that no longer complies with the "company requirements"; they will not allow one individual to be strictly nights and another to be strictly days due to certain OJT training/currency requirements needed.   The straight 7 shift patterns must alternate between day and night (one week of day shifts, off, one week of night shift, off) so each worker have reoccuring night shifts on his schedule.   Therefore, there is not way to integrate the two shift patterns into a flowing schedule, and the decision of the group must be adopted by everyone in the group.   Hence, they are a deliberative group in of themselves [are suppose to be a a deliberative group] if everyone is suppose to have equal weight in the decision itself. 

 

5 hours ago, Guest Nancy the commie said:

So if anyone tells the company that a collective decision has been reached, he's lying; if, correspondingly, someone tells the company that three of the four individuals concerned are OK with the change, then technically that's true also.

But, then, it could also be said that #2 and #3 are OK with it staying the same too, resulting in a stalemate when factoring in #4's not wanting to change.   Thus, the group didn't determine their schedule, instead, someone individually would have and three of the four individuals concerned are OK regardless if it changes or not.   By binding agreement, its not up to the company to determine the change, but the 4 shopmates themselves.   If #1 can get either #2 or #3 to say the WANT to change the schedule, then there would be a clear majority over #4's desire not to change the schedule.   As it stands, however, #2 and #3 don't care one way or the other.  If that was the vote in an actual meeting (however informal it might be), there would be no majority between them, and the quest [motion] by #1 to change the schedule would fail.   He and others, however, believe he already owns the majority by counting #2's and #3's "not caring" as votes of support for #1 to change the schedule, and therefore feel totally justified excluding #4 from the conversation considering it as being moot.  His rationale:

"I asked #2 and #3 if I can change the schedule and they said they 'don't care'; so, I don't even need to ask #4 since I have the support of the majority to change the schedule already".

 

The question then becomes:  Did the workers at the shop decide their schedule?   Or did #1 decide the schedule and 3-of-the-4 are ok with it?   One way resulted in no majority wanting to change the schedule.   The other was that one change the schedule and used the two as his justification.   My observation to this:  By excluding #4 thus far, and seeking and using the indifferent tacit approval from #2 and #3, it seems #1 pulled a fast one over his fellow shopmates (not so keen their parliamentary rights) to claim the victory & get his agenda/schedule change.  

 

5 hours ago, Guest Nancy the commie said:

So if anyone tells the company that a collective decision has been reached, he's lying;

 

That is my conclusion as well, at this point in time, and that #4 has been handed a huge disservice by #1.

 

Office politics are fun, indeed!

 

Thanks again,

Jimm

[Dan Honemann]

The notion that any of this is governed by the rules in RONR is absurd.

This has been noted a number of times early on in this conversation, but apparently to no avail.

[Guest Jimm]

Daniel,

Thank you for your comments.

• These individuals are equal members of a union, and their union's constitution prescribes the latest revision of Robert's Rules of Order is  the parliamentary authority in meetings.  Their union's constitution grants each member an equal vote between them at meetings.
• Their work contract (i,e, a union's collective bargaining agreement) states that "the workers in each shop shall determine their schedule".

 

Those two requirements together bring the notion that it is governed by RONR from being absurd, and, into a rational & practical setting, I would think.

 

The fact a decision was made without a meeting by these individuals is what seems absurd to me.

 

Early on in the conversation, these two tidbits were not introduced as strict facts   They were later in the discussion when it became apparent they were relative to the discussion.

 

Thanks,

 

JImm

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

I disagree, but I'm sure that nothing will convince you that it is fruitless to continue on with this chatter.

[Gary c Tesser]

19 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The notion that any of this is governed by the rules in RONR is absurd.

This has been noted a number of times early on in this conversation, but apparently to no avail.

There is some avail, because, though the rules will not apply, the principles (what the sorely-missed Mountcastle referred to as the sandbox) surely do.

17 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I disagree, but I'm sure that nothing will convince you that it is fruitless to continue on with this chatter.

This observation does bring to a head that push and shove are long overdue for getting together.  Jimm, two practical questions:  1.  How does the company want to be informed that a schedule change has been (or has not) been made?  2.  Would the four members, especially 2 and 3, be willing to actually have a meeting at this point (provided that they have not already been irrevocably convinced that the decision has been irrevocably determined)?

Edited January 15, 2017 at 11:19 AM by Gary c Tesser
left out "at this point." What a dunce.

[Gary c Tesser]

20 hours ago, Guest Jimm said:

But, then, it could also be said that #2 and #3 are OK with it staying the same too

Indeed, that's as much the point, and I suspect that Her Nancyship considered that point as so obvious that it should go without saying, so she didn't say it, unlike almost everybody else who figures that something should go without saying, so they say "it should go without saying that ..." and then they go and tell you.