Re: Identification of problems

>>>>> In article <20030214120441(dot)10166231(dot)david(at)eelf(dot)ddts(dot)net>, David B Harris <david(at)eelf(dot)ddts(dot)net> writes:

> I would suggest instead that you omit all references to _any_ types
> of meeting in the by-laws. By-laws are supposedly to be helpful to
> an organisation; unless there is a real need, limiting their
> meetings to some given forum will only serve to ... well, limit
> them :)

Are we discussing this, then? I disagree: as long as the list
is not meant to be exhaustive, there is no restrictions on the
mechanism of the meeting

> I would suggest, instead, that a mandate for a certain number of
> meetings be held in a certain time period, with minutes available
> publicaly after <x> days. Leave it at that, and let the board
> conduct business as is most suitable to both the business at hand
> and the members of the board themselves.

No. Putting my board member hat on for a moment, the cause
celebre for this committee's formation is because the board could not
act; merely increasing the number of board members is not going to
ameliorate that.

We are meant to investigate methodologies that shall allow
the board to conduct business effectively; and specifically putting
in a process that enables the board to conduct business in a
non-real time format is essential.

I would go so far as to say if we do not address the problem
of making board effective at conducting business (like handling the
veto rule for email resolutions) we shall have failed our charter.

manoj
--
If only you had a personality instead of an attitude.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta(at)acm(dot)org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C