Mr Walker: No one save yourself has raised the need to have a voice meeting. There is no legal requirement or even advisement to do so, and attempting to raise that as an issue is a form of FUD attack.
As someone who has, recently, been on the receiving end of your voice conversations where you attempt to browbeat your audience into accepting your point of view, and being forced to inform you the call had crossed the line from discussion to harassment, I fully understand and agree with some of Ray's argument. If you have forgotten my raising this specific issue with you previously, consider it raised here, specifically and publicly since you failed to accept and address it privately as you said you would do.
As regards in camera sessions, as I have already informed you it is extremely easy to exclude any but specific individuals in IRC. Clearly IRC is not the only free solution, but equally clearly it meets every requirement you have raised except voice. Other free messaging networks offer voice as well, which for small director meetings would avoid the scaling issue for AGMs.
Finally, this list is an echo chamber. You're talking and arguing about irrelevant details and not doing what a chapter is intended to do.
Amgine
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 08:35:01 -0400
Alan Walker <awalker(a)wikimedia.ca> wrote:
> I agree that we should try to meet in person at least once per year. Where
> we differ is when it comes to making binding decisions without a real-time
> audio discussion. If a director is not comfortable in a meeting, they need
> to speak up and ask questions. If the issue is too big to be addressed at
> the moment it can be deferred to a future meeting. It is the responsibility
> of the meeting chair to be aware of these types of issues. However, to
> date, I have not heard anyone raise this issue and fear we may be digressing
> to a less efficient form of debate for the sake of a hypothetical problem.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Ray Saintonge <rsaintonge(a)wikimedia.ca>wrote:
>
> > Of course all directors should participate in developing the agenda.
> > That should be the case whatever the format or medium is used for
> > meeting. It's all very nice to be able to meet in person every month
> > or two, but meeting on line by conference call or chat room is not the
> > same as meeting in person. We should try to meet at least once a year
> > in person at an agreed place.
> >
> > If on line meetings were the way to go I don't think that costs or
> > technical issues are where the difficulties would be.
> >
> > I don't share your view about dynamic discussion. I can understand
> > that for some people it creates circumstances where they can more
> > easily drive a point home to their own satisfaction, but the cost of
> > that is resentment when others feel pressured. It would be worse, not
> > better, for those with English as a second language when they can't
> > properly grasp what is being said.
> >
> > The ability of a secretary to keep track of what is going on in our
> > decision making procedures is not lessened by having decisions on
> > wiki. Minutes do provide a concise record, but approving the minutes
> > at a subsequent meeting is not for the purpose of changing anything or
> > rehashing past issues; it's to insure that the record is accurate ...
> > and nothing more.
> >
> > A chair moderates a meeting because there is a meeting; it is not the
> > reason for choosing the form of meeting.
> >
> > In camera can be accommodated in a more private manner. More important
> > here is to predetermine what kind of issues will be considered in
> > camera. This will go a long way to reassuring the general membership
> > that we are not running a cabal. I don't see at all why the approval
> > of legal counsel is relevant to having meetings in camera.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> > On 4/3/11, Alan Walker <awalker(a)wikimedia.ca> wrote:
> > > In my experience, meeting in person for the board works best. On the
> > > CityHousing Hamilton board, we meet 6 to 12 times per year in person.
> > > However, this group has to grapple with a geographically dispersed
> > > membership, which necessitates some kind of online tool. I agree with
> > > Ray's point of view that meeting agendas and proposals should be
> > > presented on the Internet before a meeting wherever possible as it
> > > allows the membership time to comment on ideas. In fact, I think it
> > > would be excellent if we had an online agenda review process where the
> > > directors participated in writing the agenda for the upcoming meeting
> > > and reports where appropriate were attached.
> > >
> > > Whatever we choose, I believe the solutions needs the following
> > > features:
> > >
> > > 1) The ability to connect remotely by telephone and computer.
> > > Enables participation even if the participant is experiencing
> > > technical difficulties.
> > >
> > > 2) The ability to participate with little to no cost to the
> > > participant.
> > >
> > > 3) The ability for discussion to take place by voice.
> > > Improves communication and enables dynamic discussion. Also helpful
> > > for individuals conversing in a language that is not their primary
> > > language.
> > >
> > > 4) The ability to record to give the secretary a reference when
> > > drafting the meeting minutes.
> > > Minutes provide a concise record of the meeting to meet legal
> > > obligations. Further, the participants vote to accept the minutes at
> > > the subsequent meeting giving the opportunity to clarify an
> > > misunderstandings.
> > >
> > > 5) The ability for the chair or his delegate to moderate the meeting
> > > as well as identify which participant is speaking.
> > >
> > > 6) The ability to hold confidential discussion for issues that must
> > > be addressed in camera. This confidentiality should be validated by
> > > agreement with the provider and approved by legal counsel.
> > >
> > >
> >
--
Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca>