Re: Member communications II

DRAFT RESOLUTION 2008-12-19.iwj.1

WHEREAS

1. The Board and Secretary have found it difficult to provide the
level of openness and consultation set out in 2007-01-16.iwj.1.

THEREFORE

2. The Board reaffirms `Whereas' paragraphs 1-4 of 2007-01-16.iwj.1.

3. The Board reaffirms `Resolved that' paragraph 1 of 2007-01-16.iwj.1
and mandates the Secretary to accordingly
(i) prepare and mandate such a formal timetable starting with
arrangements for the next Board Meeting and continuing for
all subsequent Board Meetings; and to
(ii) arrange that all the appropriate notifications are sent,
the first notification for each meeting to include the
detailed timetable.

4. If an agenda item is submitted or suggested for a Board meeting,
no vote shall be taken on the item unless:
(i) In the case of a Resolution to be agreed by the Board,
a draft of the Resolution was posted to the spi-general
mailing list at least 7 days in advance; or
(ii) In the case of a Report to the Board, the full text
of the Report was posted to the spi-general mailing list
at least 48 hours in advance; or
(iii) It is a procedural vote regarding the management
of the meeting; or
(iv) In the case of any other vote, the person chairing the
meeting deems it appropriate.

5. The provisions of paragraph (4) may only be waived if:
(i) The meeting has heard an explanation for the failure to
meet the requirements of paragraph (4); and
(ii) The meeting has heard an explanation for why the item
cannot or should not be delayed so that the membership
may be more fully consulted; and
(iii) These explanations are recorded in the minutes; and
(iv) The Board votes to accept the explanations and permit
the item to be dealt with.

6. For `spi-general' in paragraph (4), a posting of the relevant
draft or report to `spi-private' or `spi-board' may be taken
to suffice, provided that
(i) The meeting has heard an explanation of why the
material needs that level of confidentiality; and
(ii) This explanation is recorded in the minutes (perhaps,
an appropriately confidential part of the minutes); and
(iii) The Board votes to accept the explanation and permit
the item to be dealt with.

7. The Secretary, and all persons chairing Board meetings
are instructed to enforce the procedural rules (4)..(6).

8. If it seems to any Board member that discussion of an
agenda item is leading towards a breach of the rules (4)..(6)
or of 2007-01-16.iwj.5, the Board member should remind the meeting
of these requirements.

9. Board members who consider that a vote is being taken
(i) in breach of the spirit or principle of
this resolution or of 2007-01-16.iwj.5; or
(ii) in any other way prejudicial to the proper review
and transparency of SPI decisionmaking;
are expected to vote AGAINST any decision that is being made
even if they are in agreement with the substantive decision.

Ian.

Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
> DRAFT RESOLUTION 2008-12-19.iwj.1

I second this and ask other SPI members (contributing or
non-contributing - both seem to be fine for this) to second it as
stated in article five of http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/by-laws

I humbly suggest removing

[4.]
> (iv) In the case of any other vote, the person chairing the
> meeting deems it appropriate.

because voting on 2008.12.17.bg.1 on 2008.12.17 was deemed appropriate
by the person chairing the meeting.

Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237

Hi.

Ian Jackson wrote:
> DRAFT RESOLUTION 2008-12-19.iwj.1
> [...]

I second this.

Bye, Mike

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
> > DRAFT RESOLUTION 2008-12-19.iwj.1
>
> I second this and ask other SPI members (contributing or
> non-contributing - both seem to be fine for this) to second it as
> stated in article five of http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/by-laws
>
> I humbly suggest removing
>
> [4.]
> > (iv) In the case of any other vote, the person chairing the
> > meeting deems it appropriate.
>
> because voting on 2008.12.17.bg.1 on 2008.12.17 was deemed appropriate
> by the person chairing the meeting.

This resolution doesn't fall under 4.iv; it falls under 4.i.

Don Armstrong

--
"Because," Fee-5 explained patiently, "I was born in the fifth row.
Any fool would understand that, but against stupidity the very Gods
themselves contend in vain."
-- Alfred Bester _The Computer Connection_ p19

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu

On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 09:24 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
> > DRAFT RESOLUTION 2008-12-19.iwj.1
>
> I second this and ask other SPI members (contributing or
> non-contributing - both seem to be fine for this) to second it as
> stated in article five of http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/by-laws
>
> I humbly suggest removing
>
> [4.]
> > (iv) In the case of any other vote, the person chairing the
> > meeting deems it appropriate.
>
> because voting on 2008.12.17.bg.1 on 2008.12.17 was deemed appropriate
> by the person chairing the meeting.

With all due respect this seems like a motion for the sake of having a
motion.

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Regards,
--
PostgreSQL
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> With all due respect this seems like a motion for the sake of having a
> motion.

It is a motion for the sake of the board's recent failures to fulfill
member's expectations, I think.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.PlanetPostgreSQL.org/
"La virtud es el justo medio entre dos defectos" (Aristóteles)

Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Member communications II"):
> On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 09:24 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
> > > DRAFT RESOLUTION 2008-12-19.iwj.1
...
> With all due respect this seems like a motion for the sake of having a
> motion.

I would expect that if the Board passed that resolution we might not
see a repeat of the previous mistakes, where important decisions have
been made without any opportunity for anyone to comment ?

Or do you think you can assure us that we won't in any case see a
repeat of these problems ? And if so, on what basis ? After all
we've been `trying harder' for, well, years by now.

Ian.

On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 14:27 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > With all due respect this seems like a motion for the sake of having a
> > motion.
>
> It is a motion for the sake of the board's recent failures to fulfill
> member's expectations, I think.
>

I am not arguing that.

What is the problem we are trying to solve?

The board's continual failures in communication and following protocol.

How does this motion address the problem any more than the other motions
that have already been passed?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997

Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Member communications II"):
> What is the problem we are trying to solve?
> The board's continual failures in communication and following protocol.

Right.

> How does this motion address the problem any more than the other motions
> that have already been passed?

It makes it clear that the Board is supposed to defer late business
rather than proceed with it - a matter which seems to have been
doubted. It also sets out what the basis might be for proceeding
anyway, the mechanism for making such a decision, and holds specific
officers responsible for enforcement.

But to be honest, I would be satisfied with a clear statement from the
Secretary and President that they will, henceforth, defer late
business.

If such a statement is not forthcoming then I would like the Board to
explicitly vote on my proposal, or something like it. At least then
next time it comes to elections we will know who to depose.

Ian.