Re: Efficient board meetings, revised

[I don't see the point in CCing the private -board list when mailing the
public -general list, which every Board member should read.]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 12:53:09AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Bruce Perens writes ("Re: Efficient board meetings, revised"):
> > Are you sure it's broken?
>
> Well, currently the official position as approved by the board is
> 2003-09-09.iwj.1, which has much of the same content as my proposed
> new resolution. There are four things wrong with the status quo that
> I'm trying to help fix with my new resolution:
>
> * Things are being put on the agenda of meetings at very short notice,
> so that there isn't time to consider/discuss them properly. The
> current `Efficient Board Meetings' merely says `there ought to have
> been at least a week or so for discussion by email' which I think
> needs strengthening so that we _actually_ get that week of discussion.

If the Board hasn't had time to do necessary pre-meeting cogitation over
something that's been added to the agenda at the last minute, we have a
remedy:
Someone moves to shelve the item until the next meeting.

Either the item will be discussed sufficiently on the lists in the interim
or it won't. If it isn't, maybe it didn't need to be on the agenda in the
first place, or was a bad fit for the Board, and should be handled by a
committee or a particular officer.

> * Some people, myself included, aren't participating enough on the
> email lists in between meetings. I'm trying to set new expectations
> with my new resolution. (And of course I'll try to meet those
> expectations myself.)

To be frank it's been a long time since I've seen you put a significant
effort into anything *but* attempts to reform our IRC discussions.

> * Some board members disagree with 2003-09-09.iwj.1 and are raising
> this at meetings when I try to get people to do as it says. I think
> the right way to clear the air is to vote to reaffirm, or abolish, the
> Efficient Board Meetings resolution.

I agree. I'd vote in favor of abolishing it in favor of continuing more or
less as we have since the last Board elections.

> That way we can get on with the meetings rather than argue acrimoniously
> about procedure.

I doubt that will follow. You, for instance, will probably continue to be
dissatisfied with any procedure that doesn't service your goal of a very
low quota for time spent in IRC.

--
G. Branden Robinson, Deputy Treasurer
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
branden(at)deadbeast(dot)net
http://www.spi-inc.org/