On Nov 11, 2007 9:10 AM, Phillip Batista <febaen@gmail.com> wrote:
Monty J. Harder wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2007 7:36 AM, Phil Thayer <phil.thayer@vitalsite.com
> <mailto: phil.thayer@vitalsite.com>> wrote:
>
>     A rotating schedule wouldn't be such a bad idea if you wanted to.
>
>
> There's a reason we always meet at the same place.  If we decided to
> do something like have the First Wednesday meeting at the library, and
> the Third Tuesday meeting at your place, there would be a few people
> showing up at the other location.
. . . 
Well the easiest way to get around that would be to just have extra
meetings at the new place, and then gradually stop doing the old place
as often.
 
It doesn't "get around" the fundamental problem that if there are two different meeting places, one of them is the wrong one at any given time. (This is awfully close to the original formulation of Murphy's Law, which is that if there are two ways to do something, someone will do it the wrong way.)

I often wonder how many people show up at the Library on the first Tuesday, the third Wednesday, or even Tuesday the 14th (which is 13 days after Wednesday the 1st, but only the second Tuesday, illustrative of the exception to the 13-day rule).  At least they're at the right place, though.